;

ED 105 664

TITLE

INSTITUTION'

SPONS AGENCY

DOCUMENT RESUME

.08

. .

EA 007 162

The NonpuIlic Schools and ESEA Title III. A SpecialReport.George Washington Univ., Washington, D. C. Nai.Atonal.AdVisory Council on Supplementary Centerl and -

'Services.Bureau of Elementary and Secondary Education(DBEW/OE), Washington, D.C..

PUB DATE Apr 75NOTE 106p..

.

EDRS PRICE MF-$O.76 HC -$ 70 PLUS POSTAGE 'DESCRIPTORS Educational Inno tion; Elementary 'Secondary

Education; *Federal Aid; *Nonpublic School,Aid;Parochial School Aid; Parochial-Schools; Private :Schools; *4ate' Church Separation"

IDENTIFIERS ' -*Elementary Secondary Education Act,Title III; ESEA

/

'Title III4

ABSTRACTa

lids report focuses pn one of the BletentarJy andSecondary Education Act (ESEA) progiams--Title III, -the. program` foreducational .innd.vation. As shown.by studies and reports,dealing with

(- the amount of involvement and participation of nonpublic SchOo17-children in Title' III programs, the general picture of pastperformance is 'bleak. There are notable exceptions, but. nonpublicschools,generally hive not been invclved as equitable and effectivepartidipants in Title III programs. One reason for this maybe that.many of the'probleMs took a long time to surface. Title III has beenone of the lesser'known.Kof the ESEAtprograms, particularly -it thelocal level. It has only been within the past.several years thatstrong vbic.es,hofe been raised about the inequitable treatment under .

'Title III for children attending nonpublic schools. The .bulk of thisfeport ptesents4Cetails on the amount of participation and'-inrolvement,that have been teported in various studies, %.

. recommendations for improvement; the kinds, of arrangements and )programs taat are working, happenings at the federal and state-ievel

. that relate to nonpublid- school participation, a prOfile of onestate, and the regulations on participation as contained in Title IVof ESEA.j,Author/IRT)

V

J

NIL

a

U S DEPARTMENT OF HEALTHEDUCATION I WELFAPENATIONAL INStITUTE OF

EL UCATIONTHIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPRODUCED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED FROMTHE PERSON UR ORISANIZAT.ONORQ,INATING IT POINTS Of JIEW OR OPINIONSSTATED DO NOT Nf Cf- 5ARILY N&PRESENT OF G CIAL NATIONAL iNSTiTUTE OLEDUCATION POSITION OR POL ICY

THE NONPUBLICSCHOOLt AND(ESEA T1TL

os'

1

r

A Special Report by

. The 41001 Advi.serVtouncil on'Supplementary Center and Services

APril. 1975

sr,

c,

CA

.NATIONAL ADVISORY COUNCIL ON

, SUPP I ARY CENTERS AND SEVICES

(/4 4> 425 Thirteenth Stereet N .W; Suite 529

Members

M*. Martha Ayers -,

Chairman842 Locust StreetGrde'r.ville,'Illinois 62246

Mt. Artklur BallantineEditor, Durdfigo HeraldDurango, Colorado 81301

Mrs. Teresita Deupi'1101 17th Street', N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20036

Washington,,DX, 20064 .

Dr. Inez C. Eddings832 Kipling DriveCOlumbia, South.CarOlina 29205

Dr. William R. HarveyVice PresidentTUskegee Institute'

"ffiskegee, Alabama 36088

Dr. Bill L. JohnsonP.O. Box 97 ,

Montezuma, New Mexico 9773

Mrs. Herlinda Chew Leong6177 South. Southwind DriveWhittier, California 90601

Dr: Elise Lestin2590 Atlantic AvenuePenfield, New York 14526

t

(

Mr. Arnold L. NoTskovBox 187Albion, Nebraska 68620.

Rev. Michael O'Neill, ELI.D.

,South 607MOnroe Street #4

Spokane; Washington 99204

Mr. J Frank Troy905 Secor RoadToledo, Ohio 43601.

Mr. Joel D. Ziei

104 Oakwood AvenueWest Hartford, Connecticut 06119.

Staff

Gerald J. KluempkeExecutilce Director

Richard N. FrostAssistant Ditector

Polly'Pa#erEditofial Associate

Kathleen MaurerAdministrative Assistant

'Reggie Marchione

. Secretary/Receptionist

?Researcher

rley Boes4Neill

3 ". 1

1

J

CONTENTS

I

it

fir

Overview i

II. Who Goes to the Nonpublic Schools? 9

I

III. How Much Participation in Title 1117 11

IV. Why Is Participation Poor9

cc 41k.

21

V. Recommendations for Improvement .. 27

VI. What the Law/11;;;Ides; The New Regulations 34

VII.. SolutionsWhat Seems .TO Be Working '42

VIII. A Profile:- Title III in California 61N

IX. What's New at the Federal and State Levers? 66

orX. Recommendations fro' ihe tional Advisory Council . 72

Appendix 73

U

A

4.

CHAPTE'R I

OVtRVIEW

,fir.

...#

In passing the Elementary and Secondary Edlicatian..Act of 1965 '(ESEA),Congress intent* that nonpublic schools at well as public school wouldbenefit from the categorical sic _rograms. Now, 10 ;ears later, Congress ...1has, reaffirmed its intentian'by including btronger proviiions in,the Edu-cation Amendments of 1944. The reason: dCongiassional'intent to benefitthe children andrteachers in private, nonprofit (nonpublic) schools aswell as those in public schools has been ihWarted under some of the fed-er aid programs. e

l'J r

This report focuses -on only one of the ESEA programs-- Title III, theprogram for educational.iinovation. As shown by studies and reports deal-ing'witt+the amount of involvement ay participation of nonpublic schoolchildren in Title III Rrogralis, the general pictule of past performanceit bleak.

There are notable e eptions, but nonpublic schools generally havenot beeninmolved as equi able and effective participants in Title IIIprograms. Congress was-presented with testimony to this effect in 19699,and witnesses fpnrnonpublic schools and_ organizations, reiterated thisview again in 1973. In addition, a survey for this report of nonpublicschool representatives on Title III State Advisory Councils reveals "min-imal involvement" in.many of the 30 states which responded. ',

r ,

Why is this so? One'reasonmay be that many of th/sroblems took,Ns

.

)

a long time to surface. Title TIIThas been one of tHe lesser known ofthe ESEA prograns, particularly at five locaphavel. It hal only beenwithin the past several years that strong voices have been caised.aboutthe 'inequitable treatment under Title III for children attsiding'nonpublic

- ..,schools. . .

. ,

One such strong voice, that of the U.S. Callon Conference, brought,the problem to the attention of tne U.S. Congress. I 1969, EdwardD'Aletsio of the U.S.'Catholic Conference, testifiedrthat children dteachers from the nonpublic Schools were_ participating "equAly andequitablY'with their. ublic scliol counterparts in only e ESEA program--

'Title II (libraries and learning resources).. He estimate that 95 per-,/ _ cent of the eligible children in the nonpublic sector were receivAg

Title II benefits. w

, At the same'time, DIAlessio cited the problems that had Arisen between /. putilic and nonpublic sectors in trying to administer ESEA, including the

following:

6

4

46.4

z

Ct Subordination of the nonpublic schools to the public schools.o Problems over placement of educational materials and equipment

in nonpu,blic schools. ,

o Lack of cominunicati6n between the 'two sectors especially at theSEA (state education agency) level..

1. .1 o Restrictive state con ituti,one.

o "Mutual, misunderstandi of the purl:). ose of ESEA.o. Utilization of the dual criterion of educational and economic

deprivation for 'selection of nonpUblic school". students-. .o Noninvolvement ;If nonpuiliC authorities in determining the fleets

. of eligible students-attending their schools..o Lack of a "contact person" in the nonpublic sector.-o C'onflicting personalities.o Difference between programs as planned and agreed Upon and-,I

as implemented. _ .

o Lack of opportunity for evaluation by the nonpublic schoolauthorities. 1

o Problems with scheduling and location of-activities.o Problems in defining a' ttendarrce areas. f ....

o Lack orinvolvemeht of appropriate nonpublic school adrhini, A

strators in planning programs for which nonpublic schoolAchildren are eligible.4 / .

WH AT DID CONGRESS INTEND?

One of the key issiles that blocked passage of federal legislationaiccelementary and secondary schools prior to 1965 was the fear of federalentanglement in the area of religion. The delicate issue was debated proand-Ein prior to the passage of the ESEA legislation.

A

Sen. Wayne Morse of Oregon sought clarity of what was allowed or re-. stricted by the First Amehdment to the Constitution, which says, "Congress.,"

shall make no law respecting an establishment of.religion or prohibiting thefree exercise thereof...."

Morse was advised by legal counsel to the Department of Health-, Edu-c.4tion and Welfare that the Fi/rgfArnendment "does not require government _-to be hostile to religiipn nor does it permit governmental discriminationagainst religious activit*. The objective is neutrality,'" HEW advised,"however difficult it may be to be neutral or tO determine what neutralityrequires in relationto particular factual situations."

Congress had four intents in pressing for the /passage cif ESEA, accord-ing to Jdhn F. Hughe's, the directior of ESEA Title I during its first four

ir years. they were:

o T9 find a formula that would direct substantial federal funds'to schocils.

2

o To reflect the incidence of poVerty.

/o To provide for the participation of private school children.

TO ,ring together.the.variou forces supporting education--forcesthat"frequentlyfcanCel each other out in terms of their lobbying.effectiveness." ,

To accomplish these goals and to assure passage, the legislation hadto be built on compromise. It had to gain the support mainly of twogroups:' the National Cathelic Welfare Conference and the National Educa-tion Aisociation, long ah cppanent of granting federal aid to nonpublicschools.

John Gardner headed the task force that put together the proposedlanguage of Title III. One of the task force's recommendations was thatTitle III funds be allowed for institutions outside the traditional school'building, or what the task force called "supplementary centers and services."

A key issue concerned the legality of mZig funds a.ailable to pri-vate schools for special education centers. Behind closed doors, anexecutive committee changed the wording in the Title III language to stip-ulate that the supplementary centers .could not be run by private agencies.

( To appease the nonpublic school represenatiires, the. House Committee

specified that nonpublic schpol teachers and children vere/to be allowedto participate in the programs, which would be under.the control of thelocal education agencies.

The legislation was pushed-through the Congress with no amendments, ,

after compromise was reached.with the various education groups. Title I0the cptegori4cal program that aids dis'advantaged children, held the keyto passage of the entire package or programs included'under ESEA becauSeit was based on the'"child benefit theory." Title I was ilIended io benefitdisadvantaged children, whether they were in the publit or the nonpublic

I schools.

The "child benefit theory" had passed muster with the Supreme Courtin its 1947 ruling in the case of Everson v. Board of Education of EwingTawnsnip, et al. In the case, a taxpayer named Everson challenged a localprattice in Ewing Township of reimbursing parents for the fares theirchildren paid to ride on a public bus to a nonpublic school. The issue,Everson said, was separation of church and state. The 1,,ourt did-not agree.It said the state of New Jersey contributed nd'honey to the nonpublic(Catholic) schools involved and it ruled that children attending such

--ealools could participate in the benefit-from services similar.to those'already henefitting children who ,attended public schools.

differencesThere are sharp differences in the legal provisions on Title IIIcompared with other categorical programs included under ESEA. Some of thesedifferences account for the amount of participation by nonpublic schoolchildren. For one, Title III is not restricted to serving the poor or

7

-disadvantaged child. Such a restriction, the arguments ran in Congres-sional committee sessions, would defeat the major purpose.of this innovativeportion of the legislation. Title jII grants are made on a competitivebasis, unlike Title I which targets money on'the basis of educational dis-advantage.or Title II, under whichschools receive money for books and,'library materials based on enrollment. Under Title III, local schooldistricts submit prolect%proposals on a competitive basis to the stateeducation agency.

Title III has probably been subject to more change in its provisionsand in its identity than any othet-ESEA categorical program which may

/seenfor why m4hy nonpublic school administrators have, until recentlT,/Seen largely unawdre of its provisions. Even the legal name of the pro-.gram., "Supplementary Centers and Services," does not reflect its titlepurpose. Under the original legislation for Title III, the fOeral govern-ment administered the program to the local school districts, Within twoyears after passage of the legislation, however, the states were pusfttngfor control of the program. With the strong backing of the chief state r

school officers and theNational Education Association, theegislationwas amended to allow the states to administer 75 percent of the findsalllocated for the program, starting in fiscal 1969.

The 1967 Amendments to the program also changed its emphasis. Sup-plementary centers and services were deemphasized and "innovative andexemplaryprograms" came into the limelight. Each state was required tosubmit a "state plan" to the iJ.S. Office of Education detailing how theprograM would be administered-duriRkithe fiscal year.

7?

The 1967 Amendments added a potentially potent requirement %o theTitle III legislation: "Persons broadly representative of the cultural'and educational-resources of the area" were to participate in the develop-ment of projects. Such persons, the legislation said, could be drawn from"state education agencies, institutions of higher education, nonprofitprivate schools, public and nonprofit private agencies such as'libraries,

'museums, musical and artistic organizations, educational radio and tele-. vision And other cultural and educational resources." These personsotheCommittee said, were to be involv4d in planning, establishing and carryingout the program.

In 1970, the Title III program w4s to undergo even further change asa result of the passage of the- Education Amendments of 1969. Title V-A ofthe National Defense Education Act (guidance, 'counseling and testing) wasconsolidated with Title III. Eighty-five percent of the funds.were toflow to the states, and 15 percent Of the funds were set aside for the dis-cretionary use of the Commissioner to fund innovative and exemplary-programs.The'Commissioner was charged with'providing for the 'participation of 11-'.;ri

vate school children in Title III programs in any state that substantially_., failed or could not legally provide for such participation.

.Under the amendments, Congress sought to protect the right of non-public school children to benefit }tom feiprally funded programs by making

w

the state'education agency r spen.ble for insuring participation aninvolvement of the nonpublic schools at the local level,.

However, various studies conducted in the next couple of years indicated minimal or weak involvement:

Two years after passage of the alitendments, the National AdvisoryCounCil on Supplementary Centers and Services warned in its Annual Reportto the President and the Congtess that "several states are not meetingthe requirements of Title III legislation" on the involvement df nonpublitschool children in local projects. The National Advisory Council pointedout that nonplyblic school officials in some states "have not been givenan opportunity to.be involved in the planning and children have -not beenallowed lo take part in the programs." The Council included a ecommendation that "the chief state school officers take'the necessary a tion toinsure the inclusion of nonpublic school children and teachers i projectsin which they are eligible to participate."

4/11.01,

In that same year, 1.971,-; subject of aid to the nqppublic sch9toolswas receiving _considerable attention at high levels due to the closNgand consolidation of Nonpublic schools, particularly Catholic.schools,as the dollar squeeze became more severe. President Nixon was advised on

0 the situation by hi4, Panel'on Nonpublic School Fihance. "If declines (innonpublic school enrollment) continue, pluralisn) in educatiqn will cease,parental options ill virtually tecminate and public schoqp,will haveto absorb milli s of American students. The greatest impact will be onsome seven of o r most populous states and on large urban centers, withespecially grievous consequences for poor and lower middle class familiesin racially changing neighborhoods whey the nearby nonpublic school isan indispensable stabilizfhg factor.

"The social and economic costs to the nation are too high to bearwhen compared to the lesser costs for effective public intervention."

t.

The Panel included among its major recommendations "the strict en_

forcement of the Elementary, and Secondary Edncatioh Act No all childrenreceived the benefits 'to which they are entitled." The Panel ad d:

"Because the ctisis is most acutely felt by churchrelated schools, notablyRoman Catholic, the Panelhas given serious attentipn to the Constitutionalissue. It is perquaded that although direct aid to nonpublic sclyools isprohibited, aid to parents and to children pass mustex."

THE STATE PLAN MANUAL GIVES DETAILS ON PARTICIPATION

The State Plan Manual set forth .the requirements on 'onpublic schoolparticipation to be met by'the state in administering Title III. Indefining participation, for'example, the State Plan Manual said that "non-public school children are to be served rn an equitable basis in all Title ITI

5

projects, inClu-ling those in the areas of guidance and counseling, to theextent consistent with the number of children enrolled in private nonprofitschools in the,area to be served whose educational needs are of the type_provided by,the program or project. These children benefit from the pro-gram or projects through direct participation, observation, visitationand dissemination of information."

4er provisions on papticipetion, as detailee in the State Plan,include the following:

o The State Plan"was to contain satisfactory assurance from thestate education agency that it was making Title III grants only

\ to local education agencies that were providing for ekfectiveparticipation of nonpublic school children.

4:o Private school representatives were to be asked if they wanted

to participate in Title.III programs by the local education agencysubmitting the project proposal.

o Private school representatives were "to '*e included in the localneeds assessment and in the plann'Aig of projects at t e very begin-ning so that the needs of. private school children ar consideredin conjunctionith the needs of public school chi ren prior tothe development of a proposal."

t

o The state was charged with monitoring each approved Title 1,,11 projectwhich involves private school children to "assure that it benefitsthe same percentage of eligible private school ,children...as the -

-Percentage of public school children benefitted by the project."7

o "Provisions for serving private school children shall not includepayment of salaries to teachers of private schools except forservices performed outside regular hours of duty and under publicsupervision and control, financing of the existing level of in-struction in private schools, the placement of equipment on pri-vate school premises other than.portahle or mobile equipment width,is capable of being removed from the premises each Ay, and theconstruction of facilities for private schools."

o "Whenever practicable," the Manual says, educationalLservices shall.

be provided to private school_ children on publicly controlledpremises.

o State education agencies were to require local education agenciesto include in every project application information_Indicating:,

the number of private schools and of the children attending thoseschools in the areV served by the project, "the existence of anyfactors which limit the ippropridateng§s of the project for privateschool children,"ihow nonpublic school representatives were involvedin developing the project proposal,,the place and the'manner in

private school children were to participatqc in the project,

6

.10

the differences, if any, in the kind and-extent of services to _-

be provided private school children as compared with those providedpublic school children.

o Private school teachers"may,receive payments with Title III fundsfor travel allbwances, 1.uncheon expenses and similar costs whenattending approved Title III inservice training."

o A complaint procedur&was established which, if fully carried out,required the-Commissioner to "bypasshe state in providing ap-,-

propriate benefits 'to the eligible nonpublic school children.

o Grants were.to be-made only to "a legally constituted public local. educatibnal.agency, not,to an individual private,school or pri-

vate'nonprofit corporation."

What happens, however, has led many.nonpublic school administratorsto the--tGclusion that the rules are not followed on the state or ,locallevel.

.

The reasons for inadequate participation by nonpublic school childrenand teachers are varied. As indicated in interviews and Astimony, thereasons range from lack of knowledge of the legal provisions to fear ofstate constitutional provisigns to sheer neglect and deliberate."pverlook-ing" of nonpublicsschools. Oh thd other hand, some nonpublic school.spokes-men say their schools have not beenaggressive'enough:oeadministrativelystrong enough to take a strong field themselveg in getting evolve.

In a few places, the question is less one of administrative avoidancethan one of administrative belplessness. Legally, pimWstratiosi-of Title,/IIprograms for participants in public and nonpublic school& is the responsi-bility of the local education.agency (public school district). Onenon-' .

publie school administrator said he just didn't have the heart to ask publicschool administrators to add to their 41ready imi5ossible situation of tryingto run abnotoriZusly bad big-city distlet by taking on responsibilityr'for (

serving nonpublic school children. '

None_ lic -school administrators say more frequently, however, thattheir\probl in not being included in appropSiate Title III programs-'is -

due to\neglic or "overlooking'; on the paft of the public schools. 'Asstated by Rev. michael O'Neill An theJan. 25, 1975 issue of America, theproblem "is less one of bad will than of institutional psychology." Ac-cording to regulations governing administration of the program, nonpublic .

school officials are supposed to be involved In any-proposed Project fromthe day that Ve public school starts to design the(project in initialplanning sessions. What generally happens is detailed by Father O'Neill:"When the public school educator comes up' with a Title III he under-

.

standably thinks primarily and,oftenexclusively of his own clientele- -public school students, teachers and parents. -After working out the f5.6ain som.detail, he comes to the final proposal-writing stage and then

3 11

Ilo

remembers that the private schools have. to be involved." What. happens,

says Father O'Neill analmanY other nonpublic school Om-Lnistrators, is

that the public school-administrator may call the local nonpublic schoolfind ask if It wants-to be involvq6 in a Title III project: With no oppor-

tunity to particioatein planning', the nonpublic schools are often involved

to a minimal degree - -if at all -in the projvt. /

1 reAlso included. in the report are recommendations.for the improvement

of participation and .involvement% many of tle recommendations were made,

by honilibliC. school represent-ativeson'Title IIl'Advispry Councils. In

dome instances, both the nonpublic school relfresentEitive awdanolher offi-cial from the state presented their views do the amount and degree ofinilvement in programs by the state's nonpublic schools. Sometimes, both

parties gave a similarlanalysis%df conditions witInn the pe')gram. In

'Other instances, stark differerffes showup. One representative reportedthat the involvement- of nonpublic school children' was nDt only "we91:' butpractically nonexistent, while an official in the State Department of F411--,

caticn reported that programk which sudi'essfully involved public_ and' non-.public students, were "too numerous to mention."

/The balance of the report details the ..mount of

-_pg:rticipation and

.

.in-o7vement,that have been reported .in variou studies, recomiendations

for improvement, the kinds of arrangements and programs that are working,happenings, at the federal and state -level that.relete to nonpublic school,participation, a profile of one state', and the regulations on participa-ticl as contained in Title IV of ESEA.

, ,

.THE FUTURE: MORE INVCLVEMENT?fs

, 0_Although,Tdtle TIT will no longer tie a categorical program finder

the Education Amendments of Congress has.specified that innovation

- is to be a main thrust of the new Title IV consolidation i which it' is

included (Pattft, "Educational innovation apd.Support"). in 1965,

nonpublic school officials are once again ing their hdpes onESEA.Congressional intent, as specifiedin the amendments to ESEA seems clear:,Nonpublic school children and teachers axe to participate equitably in'

,/'the programs as specified in the law: Further, Congreds believes such

partigipatIon to be Constitutional:

'8 .

12

.e

C PiT E' R

WHO GOES TO. THE NOWPUBLLOCHOOLS?P"

I

)In 1970-71, 10 percent of the nation'-s schoOTNehild n were.attending..---... nonptiblic schools, according to StatistiCs of Nonpublic Elementl*Py AO

Secondary Schools, published by the U.S.1Department'of Health4mEdilcatTbn.and Welfare. In 'round aumbers, 5.1 millionchi14-er were. enrolled in momcnn 16,000 nonpublic schools, witty almost 1' , em located in_ urban--,

cities.z

Most of the atudentere Tiding schooli'affiliated with one ofthe following religious,groups: ist, Christian Reformed, Friends,.Jewish,rLutheran, MethRdist', Pretbyterian, Episcopal,k Roman CatholiC orSeventh-Day Adventist. 'As shown in the following table approximately'.80 percent of the students were enrolled in Roman Catholic schools.

)

Nonpublic._School,EnOliments- 1960-62,

By Religious Affiliation1965-66, 1970 -71

1960-62 11965-66 19 J-71

Roman Catholic 5,120,932 ' 5,481,325 4,134,299

Lutheran 151,476 188,521 200,914

Seventh-Day Adventists 58,048 62,603 53,527

Jewish 39,830 dr 52,589 I 65,335

Proispfant Episcopal 30,516 48,582 73,393

Christian Reformed 39,964 42,275 29,486

Baptist P.

16,574 25,189 35,098

Friends 8,814 10,572 13,784VI

Methodist 4,882 5,622 10,760

.Presby.terian 4,335 4,766 7,489

Other /1 158 41 458 52,299

Tote Church-Related 5,496,529 5,963,502 4,676,384Not Church-Related 239,951 341,270 467,674

Total Nonpublic 5,736,480 6,304,772 5,144,058

k

NOTE: S'tatistics from National Center for-Educational Statistics.

7-0

9

13.

'

, . .

-_.t Trying to come up with accurate current (breakdouihs of enrklmentby. religious affiliation is 6b.R.s.idered "chancy" at best, parlicularlY.for the /

' religious-affiliated schools iother,than.Catholic and for new; private,

community' and alternative schools. "We really don't have a data base for-private schools in the fedefal government and we don't have continuing3nfortuation og We population of these sctoois; the number of schools,the,enrollRents, or the teachers," says Dwight drum, USWS,Director ofNonpublic Educationa SA-vices. Furthr_rmore, HEW's ptactice of doing a

'statistital report of-the nodpubliC schools every five years (such as theone mentioned aboveraems to have been abandoned. The last 'report com-piled figures for 1970-71, which mean's a new report should have been donejoethe;1974-75 sMbol year. -Prospects arvtdim for. that tO happen, how-

-..ev , unless Co4ress IseigAs the, report. to one of. the education research

,4 'ng cies, ' .- kso......

ie, ,curcent-tnprma4ion i'davai1ible on the Cat lic school due to theannual data collections and compilatiOn by Ithe'Nltional Catholic Educa-tional Association. 4FEA reports, toil example, ehat Catholic schools andCatholic school students were heavily'.concentrated in seven states.41

* t 1971t-74: NeW'Yor ; 549,900 studedts; Per+Ly14ania,.382,500 studqht9qIlaidois, 3341,0W, tudehts; California, 263,400 students; Ohio, 253,200 , 4students; New Jersey, 2284100atudenEs; Michigan, 151,100 students.

/-- : While these seven states accoent for 60 percent of the total enroll-_ / ment of Catholic schools, anotherkeeven enroll another 20 percent ot the,

total. These states are Massachusetts; Wisconsin, Missouri, Louisiana,'

Minnesota, Indiana and texas. .

. I, 1

.Almost 55 percent of Catholic school students are found in 20 dioceses%

ilicai,o leads the list Ilath 234,7 Catholic students, and San Franciscq.,

Philadelphia, Brooklyn, New York, Angeles, Detroit, Newark, Boston,1takes last place among the 20 wit' 8,100 students. In between are -/

os

4

Cleveland, Pittsburgh, St. Louis, Cincinnati, Rockville (Long Island, NefaYork), Milwaukee, Buffalo, Trenton, Neti3Orleans, Baltnore and S'. Paul-

1Minneapolis.

\

The number of Catholic schools dropped to 10,k69 in 1973-74 afteran all -time high of 13,205 oply ten years earlier, NCEA reports. Thenumber of students atten''ng Catholic schools also has dropped, from5.6 million' in 1963 to 3.6 million in 1973.

-J

10

14

40,

'HOW MUCH PARTICIPATION

r.

CHAPTER' I I'

TITLE III?

.er

Trying to determine the amount and the degree of participation bynonpublic school children in Title III programs presents serious)diffi=

_cultie$. In fiscal 1973, the states repprted to USOE that more than1.58 million nonpublic School students participated dire41y or in-

directly'inTitle III programs. The total amount of pit.rticipatiOp re-

,,...,ported by the states for that year, for both public apd. nplplic students,Niwhs 19.5 millieon students. Yet, USOE officAlsi express sops doVbtsa ut't accuracy of thli reports. They advise that The figures cannot

be n at face value.,

, .

-"-----This is not a'newly recognized fact, however-: Backin e beginning

of the program, John Kleffrer, then a member/of the National A isory

Coulyil, waned:

There is not a high correlation between4fact and rel5ortiwben it

comas to nonpublic school partidiplatlbn, at least rega#dingmy"_-experlence. You need to know not O'hiy the numlaer of students who

participated but als6 the amount of participation by each student.

What Constitutes Participation?C)

"Direct Parti-Cltittion" is defined by USOE as faCe-to-face interaction

of pupils and teacher designed to produce learning in a classroom, a center

or mobile unit, or receiving 'other special services.

"Indirect Participation ". is not really defined; instead it idAillus-

trated by a number of examples. Indirect participatlon could include

* visits to exhibits, demonstrations, museum displays; the use of materials.

/ or equipment developed or purchased byithe project; attendance at performancesof PAys, synhonies; viewing television instruction in a school, a centeror home; or pa ticipation in other similar activities.

1

Each state must submit the number of nonpublic and public schoolparticipants in Title III projects in its Annual State Plan to USOE.USOE notes in the instructions, however, for prepahng the State P1601that "carefully prepared estimates are acceptakde."

15

YIN

r

, )"1'r 41REPORTS -ANTESTIMONY O PARTICIPATION;

4

To our,knowledge, there has been no ,,mooehensive naaionwide surveyQn the scope of participation pf nonpublic school children in Title IIIcirograqs. Information is available only in bits and pieces. Yet a con-clftion can be drawn that participation is, for the most part, inadequateand inequitable.

Following are summaries of two studies that ha/e been presentedtestimory before Congressional committees, as well as additional testAmony.Also summarized are a survey on'invelverent by ,the Lutheran Church-MissouriSynod, a doctoral dissertation on participation in the state-of-NorthCarolina, and a survey conducted especially for -this report.

away by Reverend Charles 1,aferty

Chyleikerty conducted his researcheon.the'question of non-public schoo4.involve?..2nt in Title III. at ehe request of the NationalAdvisory CounFil on iipplementary Centers and Services.* His conclusionsare ed on respon eF from 37 peicent'of all Title III projects (ap-pro tely 544) 1970. He reported the following:

138.5 percent of the projects in 1970 had proportionate partic-ipation by nonpublic school children.

o 15.1 percent had significantly lower participation by nonpublics children than student populations in the project areandicated as ;roportional.

/ 44

o 32.6 percent had no participation by nonpublic school children.,

o 13.8 percent gave rid numerical data for either public or nee-public school Children.

Father Laferty's flajor Learn, he said; was that one project in fourshowed a significant Tack of participation by nonpublic school children.

Study by the Harvard Graduate Scpool of Education

To gain input on the impact of block grants and revenue sharing onnonpubliCischools, rostarCbers from the HArvard Graduate Z.ehoor of Edica-tion conducted a natiJaal,Atvey_of Catholic diocesan school superinten-

'dents in October 1970.. 41pproximately 86 percent (132) of the 154 Catholicdioceses responded to like questions on participation of Catholic schoolchildren in Titles I, II and III. 0.*

When asked what pi-rcentage of the eligible children in their diocesewere participating it Title III programs, the superintendents respondedas follows:

o 12 percent reported no participation.

12

16C-\

1

ft,

.o0

' 41 erpent reported that appoximately 20 percent of the children were

involved Tit7leIfI programs.

o 16 percent reported that 20 to 40 percent of 4e chiidredrwere 'involved.

o 2 percent reported 100 percent of their children were Participating in

Title ITT'programs, ereas 22 percent reported 100 percent eligibility.

. By contrast, 44 percent of the Catholic dioceses reported that 100% ofthe eligible children were participating in Title I, and 314 irrcent reported

-that at least 80% of the chillren were participating in Tit16 II.

Sixty-seven percent of those responding to th urve therEi was poor

implementation Oelitle III in theiir diocese, with 27 percent calling it %good"

and .6, per7nt, "excellent." By contrast, 149 percent called Title II implements.-t'dor 'excellent" (7 percent did so bh Title I), and 46 percenlIcalled Title IIimplementation "good" (compared with 41 percent for-Title I).

1 / .,Survey: Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod , 1r , l

,

Moi4 than one-third of the elementag schools (345 schools enrolling

' 55,181 students) under the Lutheran Churdh-Missdur. n . esponded t9 a survey

on the participation of Lutheran elementary,school ... dren federally funded

programs. (Approximately, 1,300 elemenary and secon ry schools were

11affiliated with the Lutheran Church-Mi6souri Synod in 973, serving over

165,000 students. The schools are located in many_parts of the country and

approximately'10 percent cIthe pupils are non-white and nearly one -third are

not members of the cturch body, according'to the organizatiF's Secretary of

Elementary and Secondary Schools, Al H. Senske.)

The results of the survey of the elementary schools do not indicate wide

involvement in Title III programs. For example, 260 of the schools reportedthat none of their students_or teachers had participated in an innovative pr/ject during the l973-7,4.school year. The questionnaire used to gather the .

information did not ask, however, how many of the schools were located in,the area

of a local education agency that was operating a Title IIItproject, Twenty-

three schools, invol,-ing 537-students and teachers, said they were involved

in Title III projects

" Administrators of 57 schools said their state educational agency_ had not

provided a testing program which benefitted their students, while 22 said the .

state did so or them. The last question in the Lutheran Church survey askedif guidanze and counseling services had been provided by the local education

agency under a Title III program. Nineteen schools replied in the,.affirMative,

)

176, 14;4 the negatiVe.

A Report on North Carolina:, Reverend Donald F. Staib-.\

"My findings reveal a picture off' nonpublic school participation that was

far from adequate and gave little evidence that the hir.h hope:: of pririlic and

nonpublic school cooperatidC in ESEA Title ITI had been realized in the Stateof North Carolina," conclUded Reverend Donald F. Staib in his 1973 doctoral

dissertatioh.

1713

Father Staib bas d his concliOdon on an examination of project pro-posals for 1969 and 72, 'personal on-site evaluations during 1968-69,questiotkaires to project directors and Catholic school principals, andon- sites,its to four projects which were described in his dissertation.Farher Staib has been a member of the North Carolina State Advisory Councilon Title ill for 44( yerarS, five of them as chairman. He has seven years'experience as a C`a,eholic high school administrator, four years' experienceas superintendent of Catholic schools for the Raleigh Diocese.

c. .

The greatest problem to surface from his investigations, Father taibreported', ."wad the lack of adequate planning for 'Title III projects andthe fact that nonpublic school administrators rarely were involved inplanning beyond- t)e token level." He noted,, however, tha6 in conductirkghis researchbe found a "residue )f concern on the Nrt o?".-both Catholicprincipals and; public officials, on both the statt and local level, thatsome action tie0ed to be take1/4 to offset the poor record of past years."

-1

Specifically, Father Staib found only wo Catholic schools_that'Vereinvolved in Titld III prqects in fiscal 1972. During at-year, 38 projectswere' fund&I by the state, 12 of them located in ,areas in 'ch there were .

19, Catholic schools. In these districts, elght of the pwelv project //directorsjadmitte& they had not invited thetnonpublic sCho91 representativesto participate in plarring sessions.

twenty -five project directors told Fathet Staib the State Tie IIIstaff had not discussed with them the possibility of involving-the non-public schools in the planning sessions fo'rrthe projects. In ten of thetwenty-five project areas, moreover, there was a Catholic school,

'-'

The involvement of nonpublic school ch' ldren in North Carolina inTitle III still "weak,q' according to Father Staib, although he saysthere has been slightly more involvement "as a result of the insistenceof the Stare Department of Eddcation" in funding recent projects.

A Word on the Hebrew Schools

F

Rabbi Bernard Goldenberg, Associate Director of the National Societyfor' Hebre).\ Day Schools, is outspoken in his criticism of the lack of in-volvement

4/1*

of children attending Hebrew schools in Title III projects."The absence of innovativepracticer and supplementary centers for Jewishschool childrep in (New York City) day schools has worked to the disad-vantage of the entire comm ity," he told the House Subcommittee on Educa-tion in November 1969.

Rabbi Goldenberg r affirmed hiS criticism in a January 1975 statententhe prepared for this rep Speaking for over 400 schools yn 160 cities,with a student enrollmel)t of approximately 80,000, Goldenberg \said "themajor problem that nonpablic schools face in availing themselves of1sTitleIII benefits is their dependence on the good graces of LEA officials.

"In N=-,r York City, where there are,Aome 400,000 nonpubl schw.l pupils,he said, "representatives of tle nonpublic school system find themselves in

14,

18

1

the eositiOn of paupers who must wait submissively for a few c umbs fromthe table of the pUblie\school officialdom. Prop als are formulatedwithout any"serious'effort to determine whether-there is an effective way.in which nonpublic'schoo/ pupils can paiticipate. There is virtually noattempt to identify common needs so that proposals can designe -witha reasonable measure of equity.

,

"In practice," Rabbi Goldenberg chargeoe4NItle III has become the' private domain of the public school with both subtle and not-s9Subtles

barriers to thenonpuh2Ttischool populay.On. Unless there is a legalrequirement that public school systeug\,be recognized as equal partners'in Title III enterprises, this patent discrimination will persist withincreasing frustratio g and exasperations on the part of the(nonpublic

...school systems:"

Congressional Testimony by the U.S. Catholic Conference

. As the executive agency of 1116 Catholic bishops Of the United States,the U.S. Catholic Conference (USCC) is the agency Congress. listens toregardingtheCatholi'c viewpointpnLlegislation. According, to USCC,Title III has not one its pact in' providing equitable servpes forre-public school chi drpn.

"Title III is a point of very erious concern among Catholic schooleducators," testified Edward R. D lessio, US ieDirector of Elementaryand Secondary Education, at hearings of the Hose and Sen e committees oneducation in 1973.

"We view the problem (of participation of Catholic school children inTitle III programs) as primarily adbinistrative in nature at the Iev41 of ,

the U.S. Officeof'Edlication as well as at the state and local-educationalagency levels," D'Alessio stated. v,

\

. 0USCC surveyed Catholic superintendents of schools on their opilions

of Title III. Seventy-seven percent of the 129 respondents said Title IIIshould be "legislatively strengthened" to provide for effective partici--"pation on an equitable basis for non ublic school children and teachers,D'Alessio told the Congressmen. -w ve percent said Title III should be/dropped and 8 percent concluded t) it should be allowed to remain=aspresently written, he added.

Additional testimony, mostly negative, was presented to the Committeesby representatives of noneublic schools In varilous parts of the nation.Follping are examples of what the Congkessmen heard:

"In the 8t4k of Texas," said Sister Caroleen Hensgen, superintendentof the, Dallas-Fort Woith Catholic schools, "Title III federal fulp' havebeen wedded to state funds to develop 20 educational regional centers.Salaries of the professionals are paid with government funds, while theequipment is supplied by state funds. Therefore, we (nonpublic schoolparticinf.Tts) are able to make use of the expertise of the staff, ,bent un-able tc' use the resources of the centers without a two dollar per Fapitacost to us because of earmarked funds." 4

15

19

V.

*.

A different picture was presented by Msgr. Lugene Molloy, sectet4r4y1of education for the Brooklyn, New York, diocese. As the representativp of

the different' nonpublic schools in .New York City as well as the Catholic

schools, Monsignor Molloy testified that $78 million was spent in Title Iprograms in New York Citw,-but` ,pnly $3 million O4 percent) was used fornonpublic school children in poverty' areas whet-6 they comprised 14 pPteent '

of the total,. And, he said, 1.5 percent of4Title II1 funds were spent_on 30 percent of the children who attended nonpublic schools, while theotVet- 98.5 percent of the fUnds verei-spent-on the other 70 percent gi NowYork City's school population,/

Nonpublic School Represq atives Report 'Minimal' Invol vement. .

.

... .

S . .Indoing this report,' the National Adviory Council queried the non-

public.school representatives on the Tirle III state advisory countison the ddgree of participation and involvement in Title III projects 4ntheir states. (The list of IdonpubOic school representatives is included,in the Appendix.)

, .

The representatives were asked two specific questions on the amountand degree .of involvemerit. The first question was: "In your VIew,whichWord most closely describes the degree of-participation and involvemento2 the nonpublic schools in Title III projects in ycur state?"' RespondentsFere asked to check one of the following: None; Weak; Minimal Involvement;,MO rate-Involvement; Good Involvement; Superior Involvemen .

(.

//The second ouestiontasked:4_"In your view,. is the non ublic school

=unity mole invalvd, lets involved, cr involved to abou the sane .

degree,<175.6n you joined the council?"

,/ 1

,Twelve of the 30 nonpublic school representatives who responded tothe query reported "mininall" involvement:__ six ..-eported "good" partici-

, pation and involvement; 7-reported either no involvement or weak involve-_ ment; one reported "moderate" involvement.' Three ttates reported that

participation and involvement ranged from minimal to moderate to good,depending on the, project or the section of the state.

Of prime interest are the comments from council members who indicatea change in the degree of involvement of the nonpublic schools due totheir efforts as a council member. Some of the newcomers to the councilsthose with two years' experience or less--as well as some of those whohave been council members for much longer periods of time feel that theirefforts in representing the nonpublic school interests aie paying off.

Arizona: Sister Dorothy Ann Doyle reports there is more involvement sinceshe joined the council five years ago; lout she still describes it as "mini-mal." She notes that the directors of Title, III projects in the state,"began to realize that a nonptbii, school council member was aware oftheir programs."

Arkansas: Rev. William M. Beck, a member of the Council since it was:formed eight to nine years ago, s !ys, "this advisory' council has hore and

16

4.

more emphasized to project directors the necessity for giving nonpublic' schools an opportunity to-participate."

Delaware: William Kehoe,'utho is ass'

Diocese as Well as.a council member,principals to get involved in prowsschools 'forget' to involve them."

istant superintendent of the Wtplingtonsays, "I wear two" hats and push oural developments,- even if, the public'

/- Florida: Rev. Jerome E. DiffleirreporFs good involvement`, about the sameas'when he joined the council two years ago. . _

Guam: Sister Beraadette ProchdSka reports good involvement, adding that1,320 nonpublic school children were directly involved in.a testing pro-gram in 1973-74. . tb ,....e

,.. /,,

.

Illinois: M. P. Heller reports minimal involvemet, -7ith no change since"he joined the council two years'ago.

. -71

r

Indihna: Rev. Jame& F. Seculotf says: "It cseema that since the EA'scontrol the management of the program, it is difficult to'find public schoolpersonnel who will make thernecessary effort for nonpublic school children.The/will make plans without asking nonpublic administrators and'then make

kil

grthei finalized program 'available.' to nonpublic schools if they wish t:.lier cipateilf the nonpublic school Initiates a program, it must clearthe LEA and be financed, etc., th'iough the LEA--a 'ppin in the neck' to .

cLEA personecl." .

'), ' \K tuck : Joseph.M. McGee reports that the Catholic schools in the stateh been more involved in the past two years., "Other private schools haveremained uninvolved, mostly by. choice."

,.- .'-

,

Louisiana: Charles Fortier reports that 3,500 nonpublic school child6n( _ and 50,000 public school children were directly involved in Title III

projects in 1973 -44.

Maine: Arthur Dexter reports-involvement is minimal, but "I have notinvolved for any length of time to have input."

Michigan: Although reporting minimal involvement, Msgr. H. H. ZerPet.se4,17a change for the better for two reasons: "continuous prodding on myand 'changes in ESEA."

\\.Missis sippi:. A one-year veteran of the Mississippi council, Sister MaryCyrena Harkins, backs up her claim of "weak" involvement with statistics.She says only 209 nonpublic school children, contrasted with 17,789 publiCschool children, were directly involved in Title III.prograns during

1973-74.

Missouri: Msgr. Gerard L. Poelker, with eight years' service on theCouncil, Sees a change for the better in Missouri's Title III programs."There is greater, understanding on the part of the 14-member advisoryboard. The change of Missouri Commissioner of Education has been advanta-geous. My presence alone has afforded greater opportunity for gaining

17

I 21

C

/

knowledge by the other members of the advisory board and the State De-

)partment of Education Title III staff."

Montana: Rev. John J. McCoy reports a considerable amount of closingof parochial schools in his state, which lessens the degree of involvementin projects. In 1974-75, he reports, 8,277 public schdol children and174 nonpublic school children were directly involved in Title III projects.

Nebraska: Rev. Thomas F. O'Brien, a council me'mber.4or three years, say;the amount of involvement depends on the school district. "I sincerelybeliew," he says, "that there is more involvement because eaf the strongsupport of other advisory council members and the state.Title III office."

. XNew Hampshire: Sister Jacqueline-glehert reports that lip nonpublic schoglchildren were directly involved in Title III projects in 1973-74. Sheadds: "Most of the Title III proiects are large planning grants or modelgrants and for tith past four years none of our schools has been in theareas where these grantstwere functioning.... We have closed so manyschools lately that the programs have been unable to help Our children:....The (State) Title III Office does set aside $30,000 for miui-grants for

. teachers in any school. Just afew of our nonpublic school teachers wrote,up jsuch projects*therefore, one cannot blame the federal or state govern-ment for that fact."

/

New Jersey: Joseph R. Fittipaldi says "In certain locales, the amount ofinvolx ment.ranges from none to good." In the 1972-73 school year, 50,704child:en from public schools and 1,718. from nonpublic schools participatedin Title III programs. He report more involvement than when he joinedthe council three years ago for the fallowing reasons: (1) an active educe--;

tional program directed at both the public and nonpublic sectors regarigrules, regulations and the,law; (2) changes 3n the appWation to includespecific questions relating to nonpublic school involvement; (3) providing

/the public schools with a-list of the nonpublic gchools in their area; and

7 (4) providing the nonpublic schools with a liit of requests for applica-tions by the nubile schools, so the nonpublic school can take'the initiativein making contact.,

New Mexico: Joan Gusinow, a member of the Net Mexico council as well asa member of the Nonpublic School Task Force for the State Department ofEducation, says involvement in tker state is weak, bit that the nonpubli1school community is becoming more involved.

r

New York: Sister Joan Arnold, who has served um. the council for three ,

years reports that the nonpublic school community is more involved'thanbefore she joined the council. "My attendance has been more regular atcouncil meetings than was the attendance of my predecessor," she rsports."I think I was able to make council members more aware cf the importance.--'of involving nonpublic schools and they worked in various ways to increasethat involvement." In 1973-74, Sister'Joan repbrts, 67,570 public schoolchildren and 5,594 nonpublic school children were directly involved inTitle III projects.

North.Carolina: Rev. Donald F. Stall) notes a slight increage in the in-volvement of the nonpublic school community "as a result of the insistenceof the State Department when funding the current projects."

I

North Dakota: Rev Raymond Aydt reports minimal involvement with ndchange in the two ars he has been a council member. He says, however,there is no problem n the smote and that the State Department treats thepublic-and the nonpublic schools alike.

o--...._Oklahoid: David Monahan, who has resigned the Oklahoma council to bereplaced by SistE_ Rose Clare Stieve, reports that "perhaps 150" partici-pants'from the ngnpublic schools were involved in the state's Title IIIprojects in.;1973-74 through teacher development activities,

.,,:--t

Oregon: Sister Laura Jean Remington reports no change in the minimalamount of involvement in the yaf and a half she has been on;thecouncile2She says 100 nonpublic school children and 16,000 public school childrenwere directly involved in Title III projects in 1972-73.

Pennsylvania: Rev. Paul F. Curran reports good involvement, backed upby statistics; 884,000 public school children and 256,000 nonpublicschool children were direcOiy involved in Title III projects during 1973-74. He adds: "/ believe chat my awn long-continued and active involve-ment at the state, level has heightened, awareness of nonpublic schools,their rights and their role and value within the total educational comr

jmunity."1.-

South Dakota: Siste Faith Fitz passed on the following figures fromthe State Title III 'ffice: 3,21T:hildren from the public scho s and274 children from public schools. were directly involved in Ti le IIIf

( programs in 197 4.

Vermont: Rich rd K. Lane, headmaster of' a member of th- Vermont council, reportspublic school t 25,880 publicprojects during 1973.

.rWasl,ington: IrSister Virginia McMonagle, aIII council for three of its eight years,

Austi School for the-Deaf and

07the i volvement of 2,638 non-scho ,l. children in Title III

k

membei of the ,Washington Titlereports "extremely weak" in-

volvetnent and participation b the nonpublic schools, although she doesnote a "slight improvement" sin e she joined the council. She adds that45,000 nonpublic school child should,have been involved in Title III

)- projects in 1973-74. t"Very w, I believe, were actually involved."

West Virginia: Reverend Robert H.- Wanstreet sees an improvement in the"minimal involvement" of nonpublic schools for two reasons: "At the statelevel, the existence of nonpublic schools is equitably acknowledged andrespected;" and "contacts at the local level have been acknowledged atthe state level."

Wyoming,: Sister Mary Rachel Flynn reports minimal involvement, about thesame as when she joined the council two years ago.

19

23

-1

In Summary

The amount and degree" of involvement as reported in the foregoingstudies is for the most part poor. This is the picture that emerged fromthe two studies conducted at-the university level in 1970 by Father Lafertyand the Harvard Craduate Schoole Education. Father Staib also foundparticipation to be far from adiquate when he combined his search forinformation for his doctoral dissertation with his activities as chair-,

/ man of the Title III State Advisory Council.

In addition, what has been reported to Congress and what the non-public school representatives on the State Advisory Councils reported to _-us on survey forms support the contention that involvement is for themost part spotty andobin need of vast improve :Rif

Ir

ea,

A

20

\ 24

4

C HjAPTER IV

,WHY IS PARTICIPATION POOk?

The most frequent reason givenfor "poor" participation is "lack,pfprojects. They cite many'additiehAlems at the federal, state and local

a

nonpublic school administratorsinvolvement" in planning for thereasons, however, that reveal prob-levels.

THE LOCAL LEVEL

The local\level is "the scene of the action,'-' in the wordy of onenonpUbliC,school administrator, and here is where many of theNPloblemsarise. Nonpublic school administrators charge they are being- discrim-inated against;_ overlooked; counted as participants when they do not 0even know of the xistence of the project; that they are at the mercy

lof the differing focal interpretations of federal and state laws andregulations; and, sometimes, that they are the victims' of "gross dis-hdhesty, hypocrisy, insensitivity to the needs of private school childrenand general lack of imagination about all education."

By contrast, where there' are reports of "good participation" thqreason is most often quoted to be "a long tradition of cooperation betweennonpublic and public education." A superintendent of a diocese in theNortheast sectionof the country told researchers from the HarvardGraduate School .of Education that. "good will is one of the chief factors

ii the successful participation of nonpublic schools in fecier41 programs.The law, like so many others, provides loopholes for persons Who lackthis good wiles tO"giraciously' avoid the responsibilities of administer- !---

ing the law fairly."

a

Lacleof Involvement in Planning

The nonpublic, chool representative on the Montana State Title III ,

Council details wh4khappens when the nonpublic schools are not involvej,in, the initial planning for an innovative project: "Because pf the timingof applications, applicants have a maximum of three months to prepare theapplication. Usually nonpublic schools are not brought into the pictureuntil the last month and then are expected to provide information suchas needs documentation and staffing patterns. When this occurs, nonpublicschOol rekresentatives usually acquiesce and decide not to actively par-ticipate in the project but rather to receive project prepared materialsand inservice training."

'Sometimes, says Delaware nonpubli9lichool represerrtative, WilliamK oe, "the public school may 'accidentally' forget to include the non-pub is school in meetings, both planning and rhservice.".

25

21

J

41,

Rev. Thomas F. O'Brien of the, Nebraska State Council says the non-public schools are not involved in the initial planning because the.6tendency still exists to think of public school children and then, maybe,to think of the nonpublic schodi children, instead of thinking of allchildren."

A different problem iscited.by Jerome Porath, Government Coordinatorfor the St. Louis archdiocese. Porath says the biggest problem he seesIs for the nonpublic school administrators'in a local area toget'a conrplete hearing before the local board of, education. "Unless we are dealingwith a public school administrator who is interested in open discussion;we don't have a chance in getting our ideas considered." What we facesometimes, he adds, is a public school staff member who "is on an egotrip." The staff member wants his idea tccepted'as he has presented it,with no modifications. A cliain of events then takes over, Porath Dotes..The recommendation comes before the board of e6ration; the board'defersto he decision of the superintendent; and he in turn naturally backs thesta f member. What we need, the St. Louis coordi.nator adds, is a hearingbef e the board of education on the needs of the local no7ublic schoolchil en--before any decisions on proposals are .made.

Pro rams that Are Not.Suitable to N.lublid School Needs

Tlip Title II; regulations state that nonpublic school students-andteachers may participate in the local Title III' roject if they havesimilar needs. If the nonpublic sclicol administrators are hot involvedin planning, however, the chances of nonpublic school needs exactly matching those of the public school are considerably reduced. What happens,one Midwest superi.ptendent told de Harvard researchers, is that "nonpublicschool needs, with 'rare exception4 are neitber assessed nor met."

4

"The nature of Some projects," says Arkansas nonpublic school repre-sentati e William Beck, "is such that they can dilly be carried out inpublic chools. The time element, along witch transportation, make it im-possible for nonpublic students eo go to a public'school to participatein the projects." Louisiana nonpublic school representative CharlesFortier ascertains that "many of the academic programs do not'rela4 tothe needs of the nonpublic school students," therefore they are not in-cluded as participants.

Communication and Interptation

Communication between public and nonpublic administrators and ac-curate interpretation of the laws, regulations, requirements and purposesof federal programs are lacking in some areas of the country. This canresult in flagrant violations of the law, as reported by one Midwesternsuperintendent to the Harvard researchers. "Each local district may useits own interpretation of involvement and identificatipn of children," hesaid. "One area has rig- zagged the target area boundaries and left twoCatholic schools on the fringes. Another has changed direction to preschool

22

26

and F llow Through and left our schools with existing programs rather themethe-e panded one. Two others have created centers and all of our childrenmust e referred'while their children-are automatically included because,of previous, testing. Another distrit has gone into the training of aideswho cannot go into our schools unleis accompanied by. the public schoolteacher. The aides must leave when she leaves."

\-Nonpublic school representative J. F4 Gusinow of New Mexico citesas a major impediment to involvement "the lack of information from the.state and,14Cal agencies (on funded projects) and the lack of informationfrom federal agencies." And Michtgan nonpublic school representativeH. H. Zerfas charges that "administrators of LEA's alle, that they donot know of the requirement to include nodpublic school students."

One Noiheast nonpublic school administrator reportIto the'Harvard,researchers `that a 'restrictive atmosphere" has been cre d at the locallevel due.to local interpretation of federal guidelines.

Rev. Michael O'Neill describes how one projeAct director "communicated"his project to the nonpublic schools in his area. The project directorclaimed there were 11,000 nonpublic school students participating in theWashington State project. Upon checking, Father O'Neill found there wereno nonpublic students participat!as in the project nor had any nonpublicschoOl in the area been notified of the project's existence. In answerto questioning, the project director stated that a notice had been placedin the 'public school district's bulletin a year and a half before--thatconstituted "involvement."

Al H. Senske, Secret#ry of Elementary and Secondary Schools for theLutheran ChurchMissouri Synod, told the House Subcommittee on 'Education'of the complaints he had heard from Lutheran administrators. An Iowaadministrator told him, for example, that "communication with local publicschool_and federal officials is often slow and uncertain; the actual helpis limited; the state-level directives have'been extremely dictatorial;

d no 4 from the public school sector seems to be interested in listen-ing. om California, Senske received the complaint that "public

Irschool tendents, who have the responsibility and directi es from

an eral agencies, are not seeking out Opportunities t help--children in nonpublic schools." As a result, the Lutheran scho 1 adminis-

trator told Senske, "r4ess the nonpublic school becomes a 'vociferoussqueaky wheel' it is- gn ed,"

Other Restrictions

,4hen Father Laferty asked project directors who participated in hisstudy why nonpublic school children were not involved in their projects,37 percent said there were no nonpublic schools in their area; 20 per-cent said the project was de:igned only for public schools. Seventeenpercent cited "no nonpublic school interest" as the reason for noninvolve-ment, while only 4 percent said they were restricted by state constitutions.

23

27

Other problems had to do with legal restrictions regarding the partici-pation of ponpublic school children, including the inability of nonpublicschool children to share i.. Title III, projects during regular school hours,problems with leaving technical equipment on nonpublic school property,the lack of compensation for substitutes to all nonpublic school person-

nel to 'attend personnel training workshops.

Senske passe& onadministrator whoin large cities.eligibility too eas

to the House Subcommittee a complaint from a Lutherand equitable distribution. very difficult, particularlylocal school board can change the rules regarding," the New York administrator told'Senske.

Noninterest and Noncommitment of Non ublic SchOol Administrators

Noninterest and noncommitment sometimes lead to noninvolvement. Sister

Joan Arnold, a nonpublic school representative on the.Nev York AdvisoryCouncil, says she found that noninvolvement can sometimes be traced tolack of interest on the part of the nonpublic.school people.

Father Staib of the Nor-h Carolina Council says he found when he wasdoing research for his study that the Catholic schools were experiencinga high turnover rate in principals. Many of the principals "had no ex-perience in working with the public schools nor knowledge of federallyfunded programs," and some Titlt. III project directors were eitlier unsureor noncommital on the subject of nonpublic school participation. Father .

Staib gives two additional reasons for the rate of nonparticipation hefound: (1) some of the private schools in the state were in noncompliancewith Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 19f4 and (2) unlike sdte other'Catholic school offices around the country, the Raleigh (N.C.) Diocesecould not afford to hire a full-time person to help with federal programsafter p sage of ESEA in 1965 and to see that the nonpublic schools wereequitabali involved in the federal programs.

PROBLEMS AT THE STATE LEVEL

1M.

Inaccurate and Misleading Statistics

North Carolina's Father Staib noted in hig dissertation some defi.:-.,ciencies in the operation of Title III at the state level. He citesinstances where appgrely inaccurate and misleading statistics in projectproposal forms were not corrected by state officials. -In addition, hesays the State Department of Public` Instruction did not require a written

tevaluation in proposals on the participation of nonpublic sc of st dents.And, although he filled the dual role of State Advisory Coun 1 me er

and Catholic school superintLndent, he did not see projects (in whichthere wcs a possibility for nonpublic school involvement) until after theywere funded.

24

28

..".

The 'Posture' and 'Attitude' of the State Educational Agencies

One Midwestern nonpUblic school administrator told the Harvard re-searchers that "the State Department claims it is constitutionally freeto operate any and all programs.... The problem is to break the Depart-ment's administrative control because the state officer seeks out andworks with his local public school counterpart and all we really get aresmiles and handshakes."

'Another nonpublic school administrator told the same researchersthat "because of the posture of the State Department of Education on pri-vate education, there is no positive effort on the part of the LEA'sto see that private education receives equitable treatment."

State Constitutional Restrictions

The nonpublic school representatives from only two states -- Missouriand Oklahoma -- mentioned state and national Constitutional'issues as strongimpediments to involvement. Gerard Poelker, Missouri's nonpublic 94S1representative, cited "Missouri's traditional ignoring the existence ofthe private sector and its identification of the public school with the'Protestant T.,thic' even though this is in a dying stage."

Sister Virginia McMonagle of Washington State pinpointed "the deep-seated misunderstanding on the issue of church and state" as a strongimpediment.

4

State Administrative Practices

The researchers who conducted the Harvard study in 1970 asked ifthe administrative arrangements under the state plan program approved forTitle III in 1969 were better or worse with regard to the participationof nonpublic school children. Fifty-three percent of the respondents saidthe arrangement made no difference.

A nonpublic school administrator in the Southlgave the researchersa different view. He said "more Catholic school children were includedin Title when it was a federal/local program andothe nonpublic schoolswere better informed on the programs. "Under the state plan'ogram,"he maintained, TWo projects were no longer funded by Title III and wewere denied continuance in one. It Seems," he concluded, "that` the stateplan reduced the Title III programS available to Catholic school children."

From the nonpublic school representatives in two-large states came -the view that the nonpublic schools were not adequately involved partlybecause the State Department-of Education was using some of its Title IIIfunds to "push pet-projects." What happened in one of the states was thatthe State Department of Education determined the statewide needs and localdistricts could apply for funds only if they could show similar needs. Inthis instance, said thL state's nonpublic school representative, the local

25

29

districts were "much inclined" to involve the nonpublic schools when

this happened.

PROLLEMS AT THE NATIONAL LEVEL

Legislation: The Key to !Equitable' Participation

Although Local nonpublic school administrators attribute noninvolve-ment or minimal involvement mainly to problems at the local and statelevel, their spokesmen at the national level trace the sources of theproblems to the uncleariv defined legislative language and to the "neutral"stance of the U.S. Office of Education. "The nonpublic schools'recourse has been lederal actiop to ensure that the Congressional n ent

of the law is carried out at the state and local level," Edward D'Alessioof the U.S. Catholic Conference testified before Congressional s committees.

"Our experience has taught us," he said, "that legislatiye languagbe as free from misinterpretation as possible."

(Note: USCC's propased.changes in the legislation, as well as thelanguage contained in the regulations released on March 12, 1975,are given later in this report.)

26

30

1

HAPTER

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT

V

"When you get right down to it, the whole success or failure of par -

tiI)ation in these programs depends an the attitude of the public andprivate school administrators." That opinion, as expressed by a USOEspokesman, is shared by some persons. Others contend, however, that thereare many things that can be done at the federal and state levels to makesure that what Congress intends re ;lly occurs at the local level, wherethe funds are spent.

This chapter will focus on what is underway and what needs to bedone tc, provide for the equitable participation of nonpublic schoolteachers and students in innovative programs funded under ESEA, TitleIII or Title IV.

4

Include the Nonpublic School in Planning and Evaluation

The recommendation that is, cited most often on how to improve the

L....

participation an involvemen of nonpublic school students and teachersis to ensure thi6 the local n ublic.school is involved in the planningof innovative projects from the earliest stages.

^I

This recommendation is made by nonpublic school administrators andrepresentatives as well as USOE's Title III staff. U.S. Commissioner ofEducation Terrel Bell put it this way in a Novembdr 1974 Briefing Paperon Nonpublic Education: "The greatest opportunity for nonpublic schoolinvolvement is at the local level - -at the planning stage, wheikthe edu-cational needs of nonpublic school children are identified, and in theevaluation of the effectiveness of the program."

Nonpublic school representatives on-the State Advisory Councils ,

agree with Bell but, in the words of Sister Faith Sitzmann of South Dakota:"More stringent requirements are n7ded" at the federal and state levelto make.this happen.

Edward D'Alessio of the U.S. Catholic Conference told the SenateSubcommittee on Education that nonpublic school administrators shouldbe involved in "the total planning process" for innovative projects. Hedefined this process as inclUding the following activities:

Mh

1. determination of target areas2. identification of target population3. participation in needs assesAment4. selection of eligible children5. consultation in program design6. involvement in program evaluation.

27

31

Allow the Nonpublic 1:chool: tJ Initiate Project Ideas

Reverend Michael O'N 111, a member of the National Advisory Councilon Title III, says involV,ment in planning from the earliest stages isfine, but there's a better solution. Writing in the January 25, 1975,issue of America, Father O'Neill, who is alsoApperintendent for theSpokane, Washington, Diocese, suggests that private'schools be allowedto initiate project Inas of their own Ind to submit them through the .local public school district or interMediatf school distrlr't. "All'the

requirements would be met: the itgal applicant would be the publiceducation agency, project,personnels(some of whom would come fromthe private schools) would be public school employees for that project,all material and equipmerit would remain public school property kid theproject'would operate in local public as well as private schools--pre-suming, of course, that the public '§chools wished to participate."

LEA's shoLd set up a screening committee analogous to the StateAdvisory Council for the purposes of reviewing proposals initiated by

:Ileachers and administrators in private schools and other cultural andeducational institutions in the community as well as by public schools,he suggests. , "This screening committee could decide which project ideaswere most worthy, assist in their further development and have the LEAsubmit them to the state as LEA project applications . . . . Even if the

local public school officials opted not to have their children participate.in the program, this should not prevent the project from being submittedand funded."

Another suggestion along this line is offered by Rev. Paul Curran,the nonpublic school representative on the Pennsylvania State AdvisoryCouncil. He says a good idea origiriating within the nonpublic schoolsector should not die for want of support form the local education agency.Wherefore., he suggests that nonpublic school authorities should be ableto design a program and have the state education agency assume resp, -A-bility for it, if the local education agency it not interested. He

maintains, however, that the nonpublic school must keep the door,lopen toparticipation by the public schools at some lat r date, if they desire.

Many nonpublic school administrators and representatives on StateAdvisory Councils recommend that the nonpublic school be allowed to offera 5pecial component of a project when they cannot be involved in it exactlyas it written. Why is this necessary? As an example, Father Stsays one North Carolina project in reading was not suitable to the redsof the local Catholic school students, but it would have been suitablwith some slight modifications.

Nonpublic school representatives on state councils suggest the th

minigrantel

a competitive program offering small grants to classroom eachers

in both he public and nonpublic schools of some states, has proved tobe an effective means of using Title III to spti. r innovative ideas in both

school systems.

28

32

t_

James Seculoff, the nonpublic school representative on the Indianacouncil, suggests that LEA.'s be,established for the nonpublic schools.

What the States Can Do

The following recommendations for action by the state educationagencies were made by the nonpublic school representativeson State Ad-visory Councils:

o The state should provide workshops for nonpublic school personnelto make them aware of their rights and duties.--Robert Wanbtreet,West Virginia.

o The State Advisory Board that recommends projects for fundingshould check on involvement in planning by the nonpublic scho61community.--Sister Virginia McMonagle; Washington. ,

o The state should develop a systematic method of information dis-semination.--Sister Laura Jean Remington,,Oiegon.

o The state should-send a list of presently funded Title III pro-grams to all private schools. It should also funda full-timepositicin for a nonpublic school representative in the'State De-

. partmeit of Education.--J. F. Gusinow, New Mexico.

o The state should establish active, ,on-going local,advisory coun-cils, which include representation from the area's nonpublicschools. The present lack of such councils "means that the as-sessed needs of the nonpublic school children axle not assessedwhen and if. needs assessments are determined at the local level."--Thomas F. O'Brien, Nebraska.

When Title III projects are initiated by the state education

lsency,nonpublic school representatives should be meaningfully

involved in any initial planning.--Sister Joan Arnold, New York.

o The state should provide funds to appropriate privatelschool,Chief administrators so they can inform local-level +pie onthe regulations, the funding process and the projectsithemselves.--Thomas F. O'Brien, Nebraska.

Father Staib presents a number of recommendations iv his study forthe improvement of practices at the state level. He says first of ailthat the State'Title III staff should systematically explain to LEA offscials the need to involve nonpublic school pupils and teachers in planning.Advisory Councils should also be made aware of the red for nonpublicschool participation through an annual'briefing, "preferably when new mem-bers are appointed." Formal project proposals should include a signedletter from appropriate nonpublic school administrators ascertaining their

29

33

involvement in planning and operating the project. Once projects getunder way, he adds, the state education agency should carefully checkstatistics on proposal forms regarding "enrollment" and "persons servedby the project," and the state monitoring team should be required to doa "bodycheck" of nonpublic school participants or confer directly withthe nonpublic school administrators.

Public and Nonpublic Schools Can Hel Each Other

Another recommendation, aimed at "easing the burden for both publicand nonpublic school administrators," is offered 6), Monsignor PierreDumaine, superintendent of the San Francisco archdiocese. He recommendsthat nonpublic schools be allowed to deal directly With the county inter-mediate disttict instead of the local education agency. In the San Franciscoarc diocese, in which there are more than-131 Catholic schools, this wouldmean hat Msgr. Dumaine could deal with four county intermediate districtsinste of the 42 public school districts. Where there is a singleprivat-school in a public school'district, Msgr. Dumaine recommends thatthe county intermediate unit could t' the mediator and the broker, bring-ing together the public school and the nonpublic school with similar needs.

William Arensdorf, Title III consultant for the Nevada State Depart-nt of Education, suggests that working relationships and involvementuld improve if local education agencies having nonpublic schools ineir areas would appoint a coordinatoror central administrator from

among the nonpublic schools who would act as spokesman for the schools.This way, Arensdorf says, the local education agencies would have a con-

.

tact person with whom they could work.

IWhat Needs To Be Done at the National Level

Following are recommendations for improvement at the national level,as offered by nonpublic school representatives:

o USOE should strongly encourage the chief state school officer toconsult with appropriate private school officials in the statebefore appointing a nonpublic school representative to the StateAdvisory Council. "Sometimes people in state offices think thatif they appoint a professor from a private college to a committee,private elementary and secondary schools will thereby be repre-sented adequately," Says Father O'Neill. "I'm afraid to say thatnothing could be further from the truth."

o USOE should establish a "definite office that would take care ofthe nonpublic school participation, especially in planning aidimplementation."--James Seculoff, nonpublic ..chool representativein Indiana.

30

34

o "The U.S. Office of Education must provide a 'sign-off' documentfor each innovative program, with the sanction being denial offunding."--Michigan's H. H. Zerfas.

o "A State Department of Ed cation which fails to insure meaning-ful participate= by private school people should be penalized,"recommended several nonpublic school representl.tive§.

The regulations governing innovative programs under Part C, TitlefV, appeared in the Federal Register on March 12, 1975. They were open'for comment for 30 days by the public and for 45 days by the Congress.They cannot be considered final until revisions are made, if called for,based on the comments; Congress approves the revisions; and the regula-tions are once again published in the Federal Register.

The regulations, as they appear in the March 12 Register, quotepctensively the legal language on nonpublic school participation that iscontained in the law (P.L. 93-380). Earlier drafts of the regulationshad included more of the interpretation of the law that was worked outby USOE prOgram staff and nonpublic school representatives. Insidersat USOE say, however, that the March 12 version. the regulations reflectthe advice of HEW's General 0'o/tinsel, i.e., to quote only the legal languagein the -eferences to non6Vblic school participation.

Following are some of the recommendations that had been requestedby nonpublic school representatives. These recommendations, they said,would have Oelped to avoid the sane kind of "misinterpretation" of theTitle IV regulations that had dc,cerred under Title III:

o That the State Educational Agency should require local educationalagencies, as a'condition for approval of their application forfunds, to demonstrate concrete evidence of consultation with -

"'appropriate" private school officials. The LEA applicationshould also specify the number of nonpublic school pupils and themanner in which they will participate in the proposed programs,recommended USCC's Richard Duffy and Edward D'Alessio.

o That funds to be allocated to the local educational agency forservices, materials and equipment for nonpublic school childrenshould be based on-how ,many such children attend nonpublicelementary and secondary schools within the LEA's boundariesand not on how many children reside within the boundaries.

o That any technical assistance provided by the state educationalagency for developing grants and proposals for Title III-typeprograms should insure that the requirements for nonpublic schoolparticipation are met.

o Although the local educational af7ency has complete ,liscreti,n in

appropriating funds under Title IV, its authority should bequalified by a statement requiring it to consult with the

31

35...

appropriate nonpublic school officials. That statement, USCC'sDuffy and D'Alessio contend, means that nonpublic school off i4cials,must be involved in the "ts,ial" planning of programs.

o That the regulations should clearly specify that the needs-ofnonpublic school children do not'have to be similar tc!' the needsof public school children and consequently, the services providedthem.

o That state education a gencies .should establish procedukes forthe State Adviiory Council's amnual.ev luation of Title IV pro-grams. "Such evaluation procedures s ould stipulate that all.projects funded should be evaluated s to their effectivenessin meeting the needs' of children,_ eir compliance with theprovisions calling for nonpublic school participation, and thenumber of children served in both public and nonpublic schools."

o 'That the fegulations Mould require separate persons to representpublic and nonpublic elementary and secondary schools on the StateAdvisory Council,,as indiCated by the7House Committee on Educationand _Labor. Further, the ,regulations "should specify that the .

SEA consult with repKesentatives of the private school sectorbefore appointing a representative-of the priva schools....The Regulations should stress (the) community na ure of the StateAdvisory Council, and require that a majority of i s membershipbe composed of nom-state employees."

o That the SEA's be. made legally responsible for providing forthe "equitable participation of eligible nonpublic school, childrenin Title IV programs" and insuring that "LEA's whose' applicationsare apagyved actually provide services, materials and-equipmentfar' private school chi,ldren as described in those applications."

o That SEA's may be liable for funds expended for a project inwhich there is a,"substantial" failure in providing services forprivate school children.

o That a uniform reporting and evaluating procedure be initiated.It should clearly indicate the quantity and quality of nonpublicschool participation in authorized programs.

o That the SEA be required to establish procedures whereby LEA'sare prohibited from "concentrating' Title IV funds as to excludeor make it, impossible to comply with the requirements of the law."If program funds are concentrate&in sl eh a way, some otherarrangement, such as direct provision of the services by theCommissioner, must be made."

o That the regulations should require states to establish proceduresto insure public control and supervision of the services, equip-ment and materials provided for the benefit of nonpublic school

32

36"

students and teachers "and that this be done in such a way as L_

to allow for the pro;rision of these services, equipment and ma-:erials on nonpublic school premises when this is the most ef-fective way to serve the needs of nonpublic school children, andteachers.

o That state provisions should allow, if necessary, for /contractingfor services, equipment And materials _for the benefit of nonpublicschool children and teachers with other appropriate public agencies."The regulations should make it clear that nonpublic schoolemployees may be hircl by public agencies for the purpose of proTviding such services. Such employees would functicn under thecontrol and supTvision of the LEA."

o That the regulations should "explain the implications of thebypass provision and indicate a simple administrative procedurewhereby this can be used when necessary." .

o That the regitlatidhs shotild specify that the LEA must provide forthe needs of nonpublic school children by a separate componentunder a Part C program (educational innovation and support) ifthe needs of nonpublic schoo1.04414dren-differ from the needs ofpublic school children.

33 37

CHAPTER VI

WHAT THE LAW PROVIDES; THE NEW REGULATIONS.

This report fo4uses on Title III of the E'ementary and SecondaryEducation Act, the Oortion of ESEA intended to bolster innovation at the'local level. Funds for innovation were never intended to be the privatedomain of the public school system. Instead, students and teachers fromprivate, nonprofit institutions were to be involved as participants, along.With the local public schools. The first Manual for Project Applicantsspelled out the purposes of the program. It said Title III was designedto develop imaginative solutions to educational problems; to more effec-tively utilize research findings; and to create, design, and make intelligentuse of supplementary centers and seivices. Innovation became the heartof the program in 1967; it remains so today.

11

In mid 1974, Congress passed the Education Amendlents of 1974; theywere signed into law by President Ford as P.L. R3-380 in August 1974.Under the legislation, Congress created a new Title IV, which consolidatedseven former categorical programs into a single Title composed of twoauthorizations. Part B of Title IV--called Libraries and Learning Resources- -consolidates the former Title II (library resources), Title IIIof theNational Defense Education Act (instructional equipment and minor remodel-ing), and the guilience.and counseling portion of Title III. Under Part C --

called Educational Innovation and Support--four programs are consolidated:ESEA Title III (the innovative portion), SEA Title V (strengthening statedepartments of education), Section 808 of ESEA Tine VIII (dropout pre-vention), and Section 807 of ESEA Title VIII (nutr4ion and health programs).

The legislation.specifies that funds appropriated to carry out thetwo Parts of Title IV are, to be used only for the same purposes and forthe funding of the same types of programs authorized under the previouslegislation. Thus, although Title III will cease to exist as a separatecategorical program, Congreas has specified in the legislation that states,should fund innovative projects atthe local level with Part C appropriations.

Under ESEA Title II, nonpublic schools received school library re-sources, textbooks and other instructional materials. This thrust continues.under Part B of Title IV. For the first time, however, nonpublic schoolChildren and teachers are' to benefit from those portions of'the legislationauthorizing equipment, materials and minor remodeling.

art C of the program is still competitive, although Congress hasspecifled that the state educational agency is to pay particular attentionand to help smaller, less able school districts to develop and to operateprograms.

34

38

The program will.be phased in, with % of tote funds for all pur-poses included in the consolidation to 'be sed for the purposes of theconsolidation irLfistal 1976 and 50% to be)used for the categorical pia,-

,pose. In.fiscal 1977, all funds authorized for spending must be usedfor the consolidations.

A State Advisory Council on Title IV Wauthorized, starting in fis-cal 1976, and one of the stipulations for the council is that there is, to;be at least one council member who repieSents the state's nonpublic elementary and secondary schools.

Each state is required to submit an "annual program plan" which. spellsout how it will administer the Title IV program in the fiscal year. As

r

part of the annual program plan, the chief. st to school officer must sign.an assurance that the state will meet the leg,slativf! requitements on

nonpublic school participation as spelled out in the law-(mainly in Section'406) and further explained i4 the regulations on,the program.

The most significant aspects of Part IV for the nonpublic schoolsconcern the req$irements that: the "appropriate" nonpublic school offi-cials are to be consulted and involived in planninven-all matters thatrelate to the participation of nonpublic school children in the Title IVprogram; the law details more clearly the complaint' procedure and tfheremedy to be used by the U.S. Commissioner to provide for benefits to tlyenonpublic schools in case of noncompliance by the local education agencyor the state education agency; and the law specifies that the state isnot to "fund any local education agency that does not follow the mandatesof the law on nonpublic school pAticipatian.

Although the regulations do not specify that nonpublic schools are1 to be involved in needs assessment, per se, USOE suggests in its tentative

guideline for administering the program (released in draft form in March1974) that:

%,..

"The st01)

to education agency, with the help of local educationeducaton agencieSshoul identify those private school leaders, organizati ns, andschools which are the best sources.of data concerning pr vate schools.Information on private schools is necessary because of t e stateeducation agency's responsibility for establishing funding criteriafor the distribution of funds to local edUcation agencies. Enroll-ment data is needed for both Part B and Part C purposes. It willbe necessary as well to identify for purposes of Part B the numbersor percentages of children in private schools whose education imposesa higher than average cost...."

"It is expected that state education agencies will develop stateguidelines fbr local education agencies to use in working with pri-vate school officials.... The application (from the local educationagency) must include-information on the manner, and extent to which

35

39

private school officials welt consulted with res1pect to allmatters, including planning, relating to the project."

The USOE tentative guidelines also say that' the ;'state education agen-cies must assure that private gthdol children receive the Title IV benefitsto which they are entitled by taking action -to provide Information to localeduCatioh agencies concerning the organizational structure of privateschools in the state. Representatives of local education agencies and ofprivate schooli should be informed concerning the eligibility of and pro-visions for participation by private school children in Title IV programsand projects."

As this report went to press, the regUlationsyhich explain Title IVof the Education Amendments of 1974 were still in "tentative" form. Theywere published in the Federal Register on March 12, 1975, -and were open .

to comment'by the public for 30 days and by the Congress for 45 days.Any substantive changes in the regulations, as proposed in the comments,are subject to scrutiny of the Congregs:

The final regulittions are-hot expected to be published in the FederalRe ister until mid-May or later. Nevertheless, each state education agencyhas been requested to submit its "annual program plan" telling how it willadminister the USOE by June' S. At 'a series- of meetings heldaround the country in ch, USOE offidials reviewed the regulations andissued tentative mabgrials to guide states in .preparing annual programplans. They stressed to state officials that the law must be consideredas,the last word, while the .7egulations explaining the law and the tenta-tive materials issued by USOE officials are, by necessity, subject to change.

.Follawihg is a summary of the regulations that pertain to noapublidschool participation, as contained in the March 12 Federal Register.

tiReaders should keep in mind that the` regulations are subject to changeupon the recommendation of the public or the COngress and (2) referencehould be made to the law itself (P.L. 93-380) for specific wording as

t.)ell as the exact and complete provisions of Title' IV._ .(The specific

portions of P.L. 93-380 relating to Titlg IV, are reproduced-in the Appendix.)

Assurance: under the annual ,program plan, the chief state schoolofficer must assure USOE-that all the xequirements*of Sec. 406 of the,legislation (relating to the participation of pupils and teachers in pri-vate elementary schoolsrwill be met. He also must assure USOE thAt each_application.for.assistance under Title IV submitted by an LEA shall (a)describe, how the LEA will fulfill the requirements on nonpublic schoolparticipation and (b) contain information on the following:

1. the number of private school children 'tithe school district ofthe LEA,

2. the number of private school children to be served by the projectand the basis on Which such.children were selected,

3. the manner in which and the extent to which appropriate privateschool officials were;-and will be consulted,

36

40

4. the places at which and the times cfKr\ing which priv to schoolchildren will be served,

5. the differences, if any, in the kind and expent-of ervices tobe provided public and private school children an the reasonsfor such differences,

6. the adjustments which the local educational agency hasimadeto assure that the average expenditure per child for privateSchool children who receive benefits shall be "equal" to thosefor public schoolchildren. Sec.. 134.93 of the regulations

, specify that the LEA shall adjust the average expenditure perprivate school child if the needs of private school childrenwith respect to TfEie IV differ-frorkthe needs of public schoolchildren and if the actual cost per child comet the needsis greater or less than the cost to meet the needs of publicschool. children. In any case, the purpose of any adjustmentsshould be "to assure equitable participation of private schoolchildren ...La Title IV.."

di a state is prohihitedby_lnw or by its_constitutiiin-from p4idiagfor the participation of ronpublic school Children,,the chief state schoolofficer must include a certificatiOn to this effe-.t, along with a writteninterpretation of the applicable law.or Constitutional provision(s). The -

certification must be issued by the State Attorney General.

Note: Reg. 134.95 requires the local education agency to "consu_t"with the "appropri,Ae private school officials" on all matters includingplanning, relating to the participation of nonpublic school children in-Title IV prograds "prior to making any determinations or decisions affect-ing such - matters." As the regulation is written, it does not define "con-sult" or what "planning" entails, but it.is important to realize that theregulation does apply to each and every' aspect carried in the section, in-cluding: determining which nonpublic school children will( benefit, whatkinds of benefits, how the number of private school participants is deter-mined-by, the-LEA,--hd4-the provision will be met for "equal" expenditures,how private School children are included in programs that are concentratedon a particular group, attendance area, or grade or age level; the infor-mation on_nbnpublic school children and participation given by the LEA to

tate education agency in its project proposal; how and what kinds ofservices will be provided by the state or the Commissioner if the LEA

oilkfails to comply with the provisions mandating nonpublic school participation.

Distribution of funds: In the annual program plan the state mustspecify the criteria it will use to distribute funds unier Parts B and C.Under Part B, funds are to be distributed among local educational agenciesaccording to enrollments in public and private schools, "except thatsubstantial funds must be provided to (1) LEA's whose tax effort for edu-cation is substantially greater than the state average, but whose per-pupilexpenditure is no greater than the state average; (2) LEA's which havethe "greatest numbers or percentages of children whose education imposesa higher-than-average cost per chile

Although Section 134.15 says the local education agency has completediscretion in how it will spend the Part B idnds, that discretion is

37

(

f

"subject to Section 406" which calls for equitable partic1ipation by non-public school.children and teachers. Section 406 requires that the localeducation agendy must consult with the appropriate private school offi-cials. If the services, materials or equipment are not febsible or neces-sary, as determined during the consultation, the local education agencystill must provide 'equitable" participation of private school children.

. Thc needs ..,t the nonpublic school children do not have to match thene!ds of the public school children., "If private school needs are dif-ferent," USOE advised, "the local education agency must provide the re-que3ted materials, equipment or servic4 to the nonpublic school inappropriate amounts." "Equal", benefits\are of gteater importance than"equal" expenditures and "in some cases, unequal expenditures may resultin equal benefits," USOE sayw.

Under Part, C, the criteria used by t e state for the distributiopof funds muse be on an"equitablen basis While recognizing the, competitivenature of grantsmaking. The criteria adopted by the state, says USOE,must take into-eaneidefavtAwl-He Yarticipaprivate schools. Smaller disti 3, "these less able to compete," are tobe provided assistance by the st. = education agency so they May have achance to compete'for funds under Part C.

Note: No guidance is prOvided in the legislation itself, in thelegislative history, or in the regulations as to how a local educationagency which does not receive funds under Tifle.W is to provide benefitsto nonpublic school children under Title 1V.

Single Application: The LEA is required under Reg. 134.37 to;Lmakea single application for funds under Part B and Part C. This means thatboth, parts must be sent to the state education agency at the same time.

0,It does not require e state education agency to make the grants forPart B and Par C at the same time howe er.

Benefits: The LEA, according to Reg. 134-90, is to provide for thebenefit of private school children "secular, neutral and nonSdeologicalservices, materials and equipment" authorized ender Part B and Part C.This includes the repaii, minorremodeling or construction of public schoolfacilities as may be necessary for their provision/ The control of fundeunder Title IV and the administration of and title to materials, equip-ment and property must remain with the public agency.

Contfary to past practices undel Title III, materials do not have tobe capable of being removed from the nonpublic school premises each night.Reg. 134.100 simply jays "personal property acquired under Title IV shallnot become apart of the permanent structure of any private school andmust be capable of being installed and removed without requiring remodelingof the premises." This regulation is based partially on a ruling in thecase of Lemon v. Kurtzman.

Reg. 134.99 describes who may legally provide services under the act.There are two options: services may be provided by employees of a public

38

42

agency or through contract by the agency with a person, an association,agency or corporation "who or which in the provision of such services"is independents of "such private school or of any religious organization."

No segregation: Reg. 134.161 states that' public and nonpublic schoolchildren shall not.be.segregated-in public facilities if that is wherethe project is carried out.

Membership on the State Advisory Council: Regulation 134.50 requiresthe State to appoint separate persons to represent'public and nonpublicelementary and secondary .chools on the State Advisory Council. The regu-lation also states that the State Advisory Council should, in additionto the minimum nine members, include such other persons as necessary tomake the council "broadly repreAttative of the cultural and educationalresources of the state and of the public."

Note: Employees of the State education agenty are not excluOed frommcmbership--on the Council. USOE advised there "tuuld Le real pr emsif the council were dominated by a person or persons' from the SEA.

The duties and responsibilities of the State Advisory Council aregiven in Reg. 134.53, 134.55 and 134.56. Some of the duties are "advisory"$in nature; others are considered as "operational" functions. The secondcategory--the operational functions- -are considered the most importantby USOE. Two operational functions are emphasized: the annual evaluationof all Title IV programs and projects for children "enrolled in publicand private schools" and the annual report tote submitted by the Councilto the U.S. Commissioner of Education.. At the time the regulations we 2 ;

issued (March 12); there was some puzzlement on what kind of evaluationCongress waned and how the State Advisory Cotincil was to do it. It "couldbe" the intent of Congress to get an independent evaluation of the programs,a USOE spokesman said but "there is really no reference in the_Congreasional_hearings." Apparently, the states will have discretion in determininghas the evaluation is to be done. A proposed guideline from USOE givesthis advice: "Ile annual evaluation by the.advisory council of programsand projects assisted under Title IV might be facilitated by coordinatingit with the required state education agency administrative monitoring ofthe projects." The Advisory Council is also to evaluate how and how wellthe state education agency spends the funds allotted for Parts B and C.USOE ,suggests that the council evaluate, for example, the kinds of programsthat are funded as well as the kinds of children and school districts in-cluded in the programs.

-The annual report prepared by the Council is to cover its "activities,recommendations and evaluations" and must be submitted in its entiretyto the Commissioner by the state education agency. It cannot be altered,although the state education agency may submit an objection or counterstatement to accompany the report, USOE says.

The "advisory" functions of the council relate to the preparationof the annual program plan, policy matters concerning the administration

39

43

of the plan, the development of criteria for distribution of the fundsand the approval of appLications under Title IV. TheT is np specificsrequirement for the council to be/involved in actuallyiapproving the ap-plications for funding.

The complaint procedure. Sec. 134.102, provides that any organiza-tion or individual may file a written complaint on the operation of theTitle IV program with the state education agency. The complaint, saysthe regulation, can re:ate to a,program or project that is being conductedor is being approved by

'the

state eduCation agency. As far as nonpublicschool, participation is'concerned, the complaint would deal with whetheror not "eligible priv to school children" are receiving benefits "on anequitable basis." The state education agency must file a report with theU.S. Commissioner of Education.within 60 days after receipt of the complaint.The agency must relate the nature of the complaint and the actions takenito resolve the matter. A copy of the letterilmust go tc the individual/or organization making the complaint. If the complaint is not settledto the satisfaction of the individual or organization, the Commissioneror the state education agency within the 60-day period, the Commissioneris required to "review the matter and take appropriate action."

If the state is prdhibited by law from providing for private schoolchildren to participate in the Title' IV programs, as required by the law,the Commissioner may waive the requirement. The state education agencyshall not approve appli?ations, however, until the Commissioner has doneso. After the funds are granted, if the local education agency substantiallyfails to provide for the participation of nonpublic school children on anequitable basis', Reg. 134.105 says the state education agency may makearrangements for such participation "either directly or through contract."If the state education agency does not make satisfactory arrangement 'with-in a reasonable period of time" (asiumedly in consultation with the ap-propriate nonpubl'-c school-officials), ur It-the state is .prohibited fromserving ,....onpublic scLool children, ,the Commissioner is charged with ar-

. ranging tar the provision of services, according to Reg. 134.106.

When the state must make arrangements for services to benefit non-public school participants, the cost are paid out of the funds grantedto the affected local education agenty. When the Commissioner makes thearrangements for services, the cost is paid out of the "appropriate allot-ment of the state's Title IV fnds." The payment is withheld from thestate or local education agency until there is no longer any such failureto comply, the regulations say. Unlike the regulations on Title I, USOEadvises, the Commissioner cannot waive the Title IV requirements for non-public school participation in districts where the-state or local educationagency has "substantially failed" to provide for such participation. Thismeans that the local eaUcation agency would lose the Title IV funds that 0

would be necessary for the Commissiqner to provide services to the nonpublicschool participants.

40

44

a

Reg. 134.109, says the final actions by the ,Commissioner are subjectt4 the requirements set forth in ithe law, that is, that the Commissionermust give the state education agency and the local education agency "atleast 60 days notice of his iq.oposed action and an opportunity for a hear-ing. If the state or local education agency is dissatisfied with theoutcome of the hearing, it may file an appeal with the circuit court,asking tbereview of the Commiisioner's proposed action. The court has

jurisdiction to affirm or set aside the action of the Commissioners andthe final decision may be subject to review by the Supreme Court.

1

4

41

45

CHAPTER VII

SOLUTIONS- -WHAT SEEMS TO BE WORKING 1

)The Sign-Off rocedure

In our survey of nonpublic schdol representatives, we asked what theysaw as the strongest impetus to involvement in their particular state.Several cited the introduction of the "sign-off" procedure, whiCh requiresthe appropriate administrator of the local nonpublic school(s1 to "sign-off" on the project proposal before it is submitted to the state educationagency for funding. In states where the procedure has been initiated,the appropriate nonpublic school administrator must sign off on a proposalOlen if the school's nonpublic, school children are not eligible or the .

griln(11 lraP1f does n ©t wish to participate in the project,

An Active Person at the State Level

Many of the nonpublic'schoofreprese:Itatives.cite& the positive effecton involvement that resulted from their membership on and involvement inthe State Advisory Council. Individual representatives reported that their"proddint" and "concern" was getting through to the state education agency,the other members of the'council and to the local nonpublic schooladministrators.

Jerome Diffley, of the FloridaState Advisory Council, reported thestrongest impetui to involvement in his state was "a very vigilant personworking with the Florida Catholic Conference, specifically in regard tofederal programs and participation of nonpublic school children." TheWest Virginia nonpublic school representative, Robert H. Wanstreet, citeda state-level office with responsibility for assuring nonpublic schoolparticipation in federal programs.

Clearly, said North Carolina's Father Staib, "a 'bird-dog' is needed,almost full-time." He maintains that "letters, forms, phone calls, andstate and federal paperwork do not get the task done."

The By s- -The Weapon'of Last Report

"The quickest way to bring people around isto deny funds and that.is what they shouldhave done in Missouri. That is what I thinkshould be done in the local schools wherethat difficulty arises as well."

These words summed up the sentiment of Representative Albert Quie inMarch 1973 upon hearing the testimony of several witnesses from the State

42

46

ob

of Missouri--the scene of a long impasse between the state's top education'officials and advocates of granting comparable benefits under Title I tononpublic school children.

7Title III was also a hot issue in the state, as described by the testi-

mony of Louis DeFeo, general counsel for the Missouri Catholic Conference.}e asserted before the Senate Subcommittee on Lducation.in October'1973that Title III programs in Missouri had been worse than Title I concerningparticipation by the state's nonpublic school children.

'Cixisequently, a brief sketch of both the Title I and the Title IIIsituation in is given below.

Title I in Missouri; the.Berrera Case: The advocates of grantingcomparable benefits under Title I to Missouri's nonpublic school childrentold the House subcommittee that ESEA was, poth "obstructed and frustratedas to the benefits flawing to nonpublic school children for two reasons:(1) the state's commisSioner,of education and the board of education re-fused to provide equitable benefits, and (2) USOE failed to fully enforcethe laws and the regulations governing the program.

In the early days of ESEA, the Missouri State Board of Educationadopted a guideline that expressly prohibited nonpublic schoolchildren.from participation in Title I due to what they alleged to be statecon-stitutional limitations. Consequently, the State Department of Educationwould not allow personnel from the public schools to teach children fromthe nOnpublit schools during regular school hours, either in public schoolsor in nonpublic schools.

In January 1970, (however, Missouri's attorney general issued an offi-cial opinion that it'Jas not a violation of the state constitution toprovide Tit e I personnel on nonpublic school premises. Nevertheless, the

commissiancj and the state board stood firm. -In-April,-a-eamplain-t-was-taken to USOE, which called for an investigation of the Title I programin Missouri. One and one-half years later, USOE concluded that it hadfound large discrepancies in the per-pupil expenditures for Ablicland non-

public school children under Title I. "While not an absolute criterion,"

USOE said in its report, "the comparison does provide an indication thatprivate school children are not receiving a range sand inten-ity of serviceswhich amount to genuine opportunity to participate" in Title I.

Two years after USOE concluded its investigation, the situation inMissouri was unresolved. Subsequently, those on the side of the nonpublicschools went to Washington to testify before the House and Senatc sub-committees on education.

A suit was brought against Hubeit Wheeler, the State Commissioner ofEducation, claiming basically that the state was not pe-iding nonpublicschool,chil_ren with comparable services under Title I. The Federal Dis-

trict Court ruled that the state could constitutionally provide proportionaldollar spending for the nonpublic school students, even though,the

43

47

instruction was offered after hours and in summer programs. The Cir-cuit Court of Appeals reversed the District Court's ruling, holding thatcourses offered after hours and during the summer sere not comparableto those offered in public schools during regular hours. The case thenwent to the Supreme Court (Wheeler v. Barrera).

In en 8 - 0 decision, reached on June 10, 1974, the Supreme Courtsaid it would not decide whether Title I "requires the assignment of pub-licly employed teachers to provide remedial instruction during regularschool hours on the premises of private schools attended by Title Ieligible students." The Supreme Court backed the ruling qf the AppealsCourt that the state had failed to comply with Title I's 6amparab lity,

II%'.(1.

requirement. The Court said further that neither nor the Appe 'Courtshould; decide whether, ssouri needed to provide public school teache sto instruct nonpublic school students on regular school time.. If suchprovision were contrary to state law, the Suprema'Court held, the stateand the local educational agency could follow any of the following options:(1), they could approve a plan that did not require instruction for non-

CH s+ : .r.. ses, substituting insteia7---.°any plan that complied with ESEA's comparability requirement; (2) theycould change the entire-program-by-elimina : I : o. o e pren.sesof the public school and could resort "to other means such as neutralsites or summer programs"' (3) they could chbose not to participate inthe Title I program.

.-.

. . -

p

While accepting

lUSOE's definition of comparability, the Supreme Court

also added some inte retation of its awn. "'Comparable' does not mean'identical,'" and "we do not read...the Act (ESEA) itself, as ever re-quiring that identical services be provided in nonpublic schools," theCourt said. It added: "Congress recognized that the needs of educationallydeprived children attending nonpublic. schools might be different than thoseof similar children in public schools; it was alsO recognized that insome states certain programs for private and parochial -schools would belegally impossible because of state constitutional restrictions, mostnotably in the church-state area. Title I was not intended to overridethese individualized state restrictions. Rather, there was a clear in-tention that the assistance programs be designed on local levels so as toaccommodate the restrictions."

JO

The Court noted that although nonpublic school children are entitledto comparable services under Title I, they are not entitled to any par-ticular form of service. "It is the role of the state ci local doncies,not of the federal courts, at. least at this stage, to Or= ate a suit-able plan."

Title III in Missouri: While the Title imbroglio was resolved inthe,courts, the difficulties encountered in Title III projects in Missouriwere resolved through a different mechanism- -the bypass.

Jerome Porath, Government Coordinator for the St. Louis Archdiocese,said in an interview for this report that nonpublic school representativestried to work with the local school districts, the State Department of

a

44

48

Yeh

Education add, "informally," with USOE in providing for the equitableparticipation of nonpublic school children in two Title III projects.

USOE advised that the problem should be worked out at the statelevel, but nodPaccord could be reached. The nonpublic school representa-tives finally decided their efforts at both the state and, local levelswere fruitless-and therefore requested the Commissioner to use thebypass.

a

"Formally requesting the bypass was the only way we could get theCommissioner to take action," says Porath. The State ignored one requestby the Commissioner fortinformation on thetsituation, and a second evokeda response that the state would provide bus transpodationto nonpublicschoolchildren participating in the projects after school. No provision ,

was made to provide services to nonpublic school children during regular

11.-hours. 7

I n er t e ypass, Cal l'E , an e uca ion a in . Louis, was givena contract to providg services to the nonpublic school children. Services

actually began in February 1973, almost a year after the bypass had beenrequested. During the following school year, CEMREL provided services tononpublic school children in 15 Title III project areas because the statewould not do so. Porath says the nonpublic schools have been well satis-fied with the services provided by CEMREL. But, he adds, "the bypassis forcing us not to work against it, but at least not to work with, thepublic schools."

The State Board of Education still maintains that, under the Missouriconstitution, public school teachers cannot go into private schools toprovide instruction during the regular school day. On September 20, 1974,the Directr of Title III in the State Department of Education, sent publicschool superintendents, principals and_counselors_amemo_ de-

velopment of new Title III project proposals for fiscal 1976. The memo said

in part: "Projects which propose to develop 'systems,' provide inservicetraining, revise or renew curriculum, or provide other services not requiringthe use of Title III paid personnel to provide direct instructional or suerportive services to school aged children during the school day, pose few

. problems . . . and such projects will be encouraged." "I'm not sure,"Poratli says, "that this is looking our for the best interest of kids ineither public or nonpublic schools."

k.

The Missouri situation is far from settled. Porath says the StateBoard of Education has begun proceedings in state courts to try to provethat federal money becomes state money and, thereby, is subject to therestrictions and limitations of the state constitution.

At the national level, all parties (the Congress, USOE, nonpublicschool representatives) agree that the bypass is to be used as the weapon,of last resort. Nevertheless, the fact that a bypass provision has beenadded to Title T legislation under the Education Amendments of.1974 and hasbeen retained in the provisions for Title IV attests to its potential use,if absolutely necessary, in the future. Bypass is preferable, mostparties agree, to a long drawn out court case such as Wheeler v. Berrera.

45

494

Bypass: The Wave of the Future?

The.CommissiOner not only does noL want to invoke byp4ss at the dropof a complaint but, in practical term; he will not do so. The procedurethat will be followe when USOE gets a complaint will go like this, ac-cording to Dwight Cr, The 'arson in=vestigating the charge for the fedl/ .eral government will t to the state as the first step. There, theappropriate person will be asked if the complaint is valid and what can ;

b done about it, if it iS. If the state program administrator says, fote mple, that the school c ildren of school district are not eligible,that will be the end of the complaint." The same result is obtained ifthe state person says the lo 1 nonpublic school chose not to participatein the project or "signed off'' on it. "We relate, this information to theprivate school person mAkihg the complaint," says Crum.

If the complaint is follawe up by other kinds of facts and informa-tion "which we didn't get from th ,state, then it's our responsibilityto pursue it further," Crum states: r LaLuua program technician, the people who are knowledgeable about the particular

*) Title." They in turn communicate with the person at the state level whois responsible for the administration of the Title. If necessary, thefederal and the state person for the particular program go on site. Theprocess continues--hopefully, until the complaint is resolvedsatisfactorilyand without the need to implement the bypa4s provision.

PROGRAMS, PRACTICED, STRATEGIES

Several State Title III coordinators and nonpublic school administra-tors said in interviews for this report it would be presumptuous to includea listing of "model" programs--that is, programs which ate "exemplary" inheft attempts or actual-practice of the nonpublic schools in

planning, implementing and evaluatinsi Title III projects. They also saida listing of exemplary programs would present a distorted picture of what,they consider to be "minimal" involvemerlt.

Yet,'there are programs where local or state Title III staff membershave taken the initiative in involving the nonpublic schools. There arealso many areas in which the public and the nonpublic schools have workedtogether amicably for many years. These cannot be slighted'. There areadditionalstrong reasons for including sample programs and particularlyfor indicating how relationships have been worked cut. In several in-stances, steps taken by local and State Title III staff members have re-sulted in clearer guidelines from USOE.

The following case studies and project descriptions were chosen be-cause they indicate current trends and practices of state and local TitleIII administrators. Some of'the projects were included at the suggestionofTitle III staff in USOE, ,others due to suggestions from nonpublic schoolcoordinators on state advisOry councils. For example, descrip ions areincluded of the steps taken by a state facilitator and by a de loper-demenstrator, key roles in USOE's Dissemination/Dfusions Netw rk. These

50ti

are the projects funded with discretionary funds granted to the Commissioner,of Education. As such, these are the programs in which USOE has the .mostdirect contact and control.

The Title III program in Philadelphia is described because the cityis frequently cited as on ,in which the relationships between the publicand nonpublic communities are al-out the best in the country. Yet, this

is a change over the situation about four to five years ago. Additional

descriptions are included of projects in Rhode Island and Louisiana andof one project in'Cleveland, Ohio, which has cost very little but con-tributed much to the area's Lutheran Memorial School. Project I-C-E is

included because staff members of this Wisconsin environmental proj'cthave always encouraged nonpublic school participation for two reasons:(1) they were following the state guidelines on Title III and (2) theybelieve all teachers should be teaching about the environment. The final

project included in this chapter describes a Title III project which seemsto be changing the structure of teaching in the state of Arizona. jeach-ers in both the public and-thle-rienpub-14-e-s-eheele-the-t-h-ave-beee-inveived----in this fledgling but well-received project are equally enthusiastic aboutthe results in their schools.

How A State Facilitator Provides 'Equal Opportunity'

In Massachusetts, State Facilitator David Crandall is setting whatmay be a precedent in the area of involvement of nonpublic school ..aildrenin federally funded projects. As a Title III State Facilitator, Crandallis responsible for making educators'in the entire stall aware of model,

validated projects and for helping them to adopt the project that meetsthe needs of their schools.

1.

In fulfilling their roles, State Facilitators usually inform thepublic schools in the state Cirtheir activities and then depend on thepublic schools to tell or involve the nonpublic schools.. Crandall, how-

ever, has decided to follow the more direct route of informing the nonpublicschools by making contact with them Individually instead of letting theburden rest with the public schools or with the nopeblic schools' diocesanoffices or state associations.,

Crandall's strategy is the following: He sends out "initial awarenesspackets" to the superintendents of public school districts and to build-ing principals of nonpublic schools. This year's packet contained briefdescrip ions'of 41 validated projects in areas as diverse as reading/language \ instruationo, special education, administrationlinterdisciplinaryprograms and learning environments.

Crandall says if he h'ad not sent the information directly to the non-public school principals, it would have been up to the public school ad-ministrator to seek out and find his local nonpublic school counterpart in

47

51

order to ask them if they were interested-in apartiLular project. Thismethod tends to limit the nonpublic school to the project chosen by thepublic school. Crandall ruled out contact through the nonpublic schoolagencies because the largest group--1,200 Catholic schools- -were groupedunder only four administrative agencies or diocesan offices. This wouldhave meant that the word may or may not have filtered down in 'time for thenonpublic school at the local level to express an interest in adoptingone of the validated programs. Crandall simply short-circuited the processby going directly to the building principals of the nonpublic schools.

USOE's Title II/ office is now telling state facilitators they mayfollow either the type of strategy used by Crandall or the more commonlyused method of informing the public schools and then letting them bearthe responsibility for informing and involving the nonpublic schools intheir plans or participation.

Crandall says it's relatively easy to work with the nonpublic schoolsin his state because "we've been in existence for abolit five years andhave worked with both the parochial and private schools in addition to the. public schools." The earlier Title III project directed by Crandall,the Network of Innovative Schools; aimed at bringing together the publicand/honpublic schools in order to Improve education throughout the state.

In an interview, Crandall reported that the mailing of initial aware-'ness packets to the 1,200 nonpublic school principals drew ,a response fromapproximately five percent of the school's, with additional requests formore information received by the project office somewhat later. Thosewho repponded, from both the publiE and the nonpublic schools, receiveda detPiled catalog on the 41 validated projects.

Crandall's Diffusion Assistance Project, its official name, workswith all interested schools and districts in resolving -as-many-of-the-'potential prObleus as possible before schools are invited to send repre-

j sentatives to training sessions. Crandall says he always tries to getcomplete 'support for any project from the local administrators, the class-room teachers and the parents. He does this by involving representativesof each group in the planning. and needs assessment of the community priorto the launching of the project. In,this way, he adds, the interestedgroups come to a consensus about the school needs before the project getsandei way.

The next step in the Massachusetts diffusion plan is to invite publicand nonpublic schools that have expressed interest in adopting any of thevalidated practices to regional conferences around the state. Here,they are given further expianation of how the diffusion strategy works,that is, the steps involvea in adopting an educational practice and get-ting it to the "success" level in their own school.

Crandall and his staff then set up- "clusters" of schools interested. -

in adopting the same practice in order that training and follow-throughcan be conducted in geographically close areas with maximum efficiency.

48

52

I

The staff also tries to work with clusters of schools in order to facilitatecollaboration between schools. Adopting school distiicts are invited to

send personnel to training sessions and they receive follow-up help 0long as they need it from Crandall and his staff. Initially, a staff mem-ber meets dnce or twice a month with a "cluster" of schools involved inadopting specific projects, as well as on an individual basis.

As the State Facilitator, Crandall says he can help schools interestedin adopting a project to defray at least part of the cost for expensessuch as consultants and materials. The exact amount depends on the needof the school or district, with the maximum set at $1,500. The school ,

or district must assume most of the cost of adopting the pincject. "Whatwe are trying to do," shys Crandall, "is to show the schools,\public and .

nonpublic, that we can help them to develop a successful educational prac-tice in their school for a fraction ofcthe cost if they did it by anothermethod."

"At this point," Crandall-concludes, "we are not forcing equity inparticipation. It's handled -6y virtue of the fact that all schools=-Ehe\public and the nonpublic schools --have an equal chance to incorporate suc=\cessful educational practices."

For more information, contact David P. Crandall, Executive Director,. Massachusetts Diffusion Assistance Project, Mechanics Street, Merimac,Mass. 01860 (617/367-8181).

Can Nonpublic Schools Be Involved in USOE's Model Pro rams

4

Can nonpublic schools take advantage of the training offered by USOE'smodel programs - -that is, those funded under Title III, Section 306, asdeveloper-demonstrator projects? Yes, in fact they are encouraged to doEtopasindicatedby_recently approved criteria (See pages 34 _to_41)

In the past, just what the, developer/demonstrators were supposed todo and what their responsibilities were to the nonpublic schools were un-clear. In New York State, however, Frank Thompson, Director of the ECOSTraining Institute, has served the needs of the 47 BOcES (intermediateunits in NeW York State) plus the needs of nonpublic school staffs fromas far away as Minneapolis/St. Paul and Omaha.

Thompson provides training in how to incorporate local and nationalenvironmental concerns into a school's total curriculum. A nonpublic schooladministrator in his home state was the first to have nonpublic schoolstaff traindd at the project site. She contacted USOE's Title III officeasking how the school could be involved in Thompson's demonstration program.USOE referred her directly to Thompson. The first step he took afterreceiving the request was to inform all public school districts throughthe BOGS operation and nonpublic schools through their state o % ganiza-tions of the availability of training at the project site. The roject

49

53

staff worked out a figure for equitable participation by:both the public,and the nonpublic schools, based on the num4er of children enrolled inthe interested schools. Then, training began.

r.

Thompson says he has had-no problems in working out participationand the pro4oct is moving along smoothly. He advises other developer -demonstra4ors there are Steps they can take to avoid any possible c..:41flictd."As a matter of good judgment in a potentially controversial area" he says,"developer demonstrators should first offer the program to the publicschool. If it declines; then go to the private school and let it partAci-pate alone.," He follows, his own advice by offering training to the-inter-ested public school, followed by training for the nonpublic school staff.If the nonpubli school initially requests the training,hompson goesto the public school to find-out whether or notit wants to be involvedin the project. If the public school declines, Thompson offers trainingto the'nonpublic school alone, as requeSted.

.1

For more information. contact Franris J. Thompsoft,_Directox,_ECOSTraining Institute, 833 Fox Meadow Road, Heights, N.Y. 10598 (914/245-6919).

-(Note: A complete listing of the current Developer- Demonstrators --model programs--and the'Title III State Facilitators-appears inthe Appendix.)

Philadelphia Offers 'Exciting' Examples of Public/Nonpublic Projects

"Philadelphia has the most exciting examples ofpublic/nonpublicc,cooperation in the nation. TitleIII has significantly fostered that cooperation."

Reverend Paul F. Curran has made that statement as the nonpublic schoolrep-resext-tat itve-on-the-PLuibylveuLis Slate Advisory Countil-Dn Title

Other knOwledgeable'nonpublic school administrators back up his view byreferring to Philadelphia when they want to illustrate that involvementof nonpublic schools in federally .funded programs can work and that a'co-operativpeffort between_ the public and' nonpublic schools is possible.' -

Father Curran says 256,000 nonpublic school children were directlyinvolved in Pennsylvania's Title 'III programs in 1973-74, Along with 884,000,students from the public sehools. In the 'city of Philadelphia, 54,000"

,

public school pupils and 17,000 nonpublic school pupils participated inTitle III-programs Yet, only four years earlier in Philadelphia, thepicture was quite different. At that time, 1969, Msgr. Edward Hughes testi-fied before Congress that "cur degree of participation in Title I and TitleIII has hardlybeen 10 percent although 35 percent of Philadelphia studentswere enrolled in Catholic schools."

Why the change? Father Curran says the public and the nonpublic schoolsystems in the city realized that it was "good public policy" to work

50

'1

closely together, due to the sheer numbers of students who were enrolledin the nonpublic schools. In the past four to five years, the picturehas ,changed considerably. "We just have to accept the fact that in ourcity or in any urban center, it takes a long time to work out the problems."

In the end, involvement comes down to commitment and cooperation,Father'Curran states. "It amounts to the availability of an administratorat reponably high level--a superintendent, for example--who will givesome time and push for nonpublic school involvement." Otherwise, he adds,

the nonpublic school official "eve no effective powers of-initiatingprOjects. Another source of particular difficulty is the "competitive"nature of Title III'which is unlike Title I, where equity is much easierto get," 'e says.

Fathe1. ...rran says the strongest impetus in the state for the involv,F-ment and- participation of nonpublic school children was the introductionof the sign-off procedure. "Underlying this, howeVer, has been the factthat ESEA has led to a continuing and dynamic relationship between publicand nonpublic .-rhools in the state." He added: "It is difficult for

strangers ' '1-'1'. together; ESEA has helped to make acquaintances and in-

deed fries ,ong the'tdtal educat-onal community."

Currently, the difficulcic.s seen by Father ,Curran in his area arethe "tailui-ag" ef.projects and the lack of nonpublic school involvementin planning. "Proposals are frequently tailored to a specific publk\schoolor school district and their needs. There are still times, *also," he adds,

"when nonpublic schools are drawn in at the last minute."

The cooperative spirit in Philadelphia between public and nonpublicschools exists, as Father Curran states, because it's a matter of "good_public policy." The idea also received additional support under a TitleIII grant which helped the schools set up Joint Public-Parochial PlanningCouncils in the eight subdistricts of the city.

Under the Title III project, each Council brought, together students,parents, teachers and administrators in a joint effort to plan), direct and,work together on Title III activities. The secondary aims of the Council;were to open the lines of communication between the parents of parochial 'and public,school children and to allow students, parents and teachers "togain an increased awareness and understanding of the cultural diversityof the various communities in Philadelphia."

During 1973-74, the thirty programs sponsored by the Joint PlanningCouncil involved almost equal numbers of public and parochial schools.In five of the thirty programs, Father Curran reports that public and non-public students met for programs during regular school time. Most of theclasses met once or twice a week for tile to two hours. ACtivitiesrangedfrom academic programs in reading, science, gpanish and ethnic studiesto 'e arts, trades, sports, cooking, music, drama, volleyball and commun-ity service.

During the third year Of the Title III Joint Councils, a full -timecitywide coordinator was named. Working with him were a parochial school

51

55

Q the public school system spends from 2 to 5 percent b, his time on theproject, the district coordinator spends "10 to 5Q percent of his time on the

project, according to a booklet on the Joint Planning Councils entitledBuilding Bridges. In addition, teachers, principals and district super-intendents are involved in the project during regular school hours.

counterpart and other staff members at the Catholic archdiocesap office.The number of public schools taking part in Title III programs increasedfrom 35 to 62 and the number of inantpublic schools wens from 31-to 68.

?h eThe number of students participating in the programs ?h e from 2,925 to4,631. The most significant change, however, took place in the numberof cooperative programs conducted during regular school hours. _They in-creased from 5 to 20.

The Joint Public-Parochial Planning Councils have been strongly sup-ported by both the School District of Philadelph and the Archdiocesan I

School System. The budget officer in each of the grit subdAstricts of

Following are'brief descriptions of some of Philadelphia's Title IIIprograms that foster public/nonpublic school cooperation:

o Six schools, broken into three pairs of one public and one non-public school, are involved'ih an ethnic studies program called"Operation Understanding." Teachers, parents and volunteersteach the course to fourth and fifth graders. Four days a week,the public and nonpublic students net in their respective schoAs,with a once - a-week meeting jointly, with the site alternatjngbetween the public and parochial school.

o Fifth to eighth grade pupils from twd public and two nonpublicschools meet twice a week fpr a program in home economics, graphicarts, music, typing, metal shop, and woodshop. In one and one-halfhouy' sessions, student groups are taught by teams of public andpar6chial teachers in cycles of eight weeks duration. Fourteenteachers,'150 students and one paraprofessional are involved inthe "Joint Shops Program."

o Forty elementary students 'of a.public and nonpublic school meetdaily after school to learn basic skills in physical ed ation.

o Fifth to eighth graders in a public and a nonpublic s odi nettwice weekly at each other's schools in order to develop a choruscapable of community performances. Involved in the project are

.sixty pupils and four teachers.

o In a minicourse project, mixed,Aroups from a public school, a,-

nonpublic school and it-technical/vocational school net onceweekly during regular school hove to participate in typing,photography, m.,3ic, woodshop, beauty culture, sewing, baking,swimming, crcas-age tutoring and televiAion-assisted readtng.Twelve teachers, fifty elementary students and seventy-fivesecondary students are participating in the prooram.

52

56

1.1

V

o.

o Paired classes of public and nonpublic students in fourth through/sixth grade are studying physical and life sciences in "hands-on" experiences with Elementary Science Study materials. Sixhundred students, two paraprofessionals and eighteen teachersare involved.

o Two teachers and sixv-eight students from a public and a ran--public school are participating in seven week courses to developthe ability of.third graders to write and discuss stories in ajoint language arts class.

o High school students from two public and two nonpublic schoolsare being trained in tutoring skills in the areas of reading andmathimatids.LIn for sessions, over a period of fifteen weeks,all held'at the pub grade school, the students are beingtrained to tutor e: gientary students in public and parochialschools.

o Special education students from a public and a nonpublic schooltake part in a,once-a-week, during-school-hours program to developtheir physical", motor and social skills. Sports a-tivities forthe children include a track and field, softball,,, soccer and move-ment activities.r

o Four hundred students and two teachers from two private and onepublic high school take part 0 a community service project. Stu-

dents make weekly trips to a state mental hospital and an old-agehome to visit the patients, serve dinner and to get involved inrecreational activities.

These are but a few examples of the many activities in'lving bothpublic and nonpublic schools in joint ventures. Others include many types

. of enrichment activities, training of parents and high schonj. students asEl.pofoom aides and tutors, planning and discussicin sessions by groups'tdteachers or students on specific topics, bicentennial activities, environ-mental and community awareness projects.

The hAndbo0- the Joint Planning Councils, Building Bridges, isavailable from Charles Colgan, School District of Philadelphia, Administra-tion Building, 21st Street South of the Parkway, Philadelphia, Pa. 19103(Phone: 215/448-3441).

"Alt

Rhode Island: Nonpublic Schools Initiate Grants

In Rhode Island, a part-time consultant for the nonpublic schoolsworking in the State Department of Education seems to be having a positiveinfluence in the amount of involvement of'nonpublic school children infederally funded programs.\ The consultant is Sister Mr. Rosalia,Flaherty,who has been the job only a short period of time. "We are feeling hdrpresence," say the state's Coordinator of Innovative and Handicapped Pro-'grams, Richard Harrington. One of Sister Rosalia's jobs is to review

r 53

57

applications for federal grants to ascertain whether the applicant hasprovided for the participation of nonpublic school children, if appropriate.

Additional support for nonpublic school involvement comes fromHarrington himself. He slys he is personally committed to serving theneeds of all children; rejardless of the kind of school they may beattending.

The state's nonpub4 schools are encouraged to get involved inTitle.III piojects, even. to the point of initiating g project throughthe local education agency, following federal regulations, the state re-quires the local education ! agency to apply for the grant and to administerit, which means that the superintendent of the local education agency mustaffee to the proposal by the nonpublic school and must sign the application.In these instances, of course, the state requires the nonpublic school toask the public school if it wants to be a co-participant in the grant.

The two Rhode island projects described below were chosen becausethey involve only students or teachers in a nonpublic school. The St.Xavier Academy project is requiring change on the part of all teachers inthe Academy. This project is an example of a case where the nonpublicschool has the flexibility to make changes that the public school cannotHarrington said in an interview. As with any Title III project, the ideais to provide a testing grdund for an idea that could prove to be workable

not only in the pilot schqnr, but one that could spread to otner schoolsupon evidence of effectiveness.

Guidance and Individualized Instruction: A concept originally developedunder a Title III minigrant is now receiving additional support under a TitleIII grant to thevsame school, St. Xavier Academy. The school, run by theSisters of Mercor, serves 527 students from the Providence, Rhode Island, area.

The concept, Saturation Learning, allows for individualized instructionby saturating a student in one area of study for approximately nine weeks.In that amount of time, most students" are able to complete a year's work.They receive credit when they have mastered the subject and immediatelybegin another course. Through the system,, students are able to earn the 16credits necessary for high school graduation before the end of the junioryear. They may stay, however, as long as necessary to complete the requirelnumber of courses. All teachers in the system require retraining so theyare able to teach in the manner required for Saturation Learning. The stu-dents not only receive individualized instruction via the Saturated LearningApproach but they are provided individual attention in a counseling program.

The backbone of the total program, says Sister Marie Andre, the ProjectDirector, is, the innovative use of teacher-counselors. This replaCes theXaditional hcmeroom system. Each teacher-counselor meets twice daily

1

th a group of 15 or less students and with individual students as neces-sary. Students choose the teacher-counselor they prefer, so the groupsare mixed by age and grade

/level. .

.1Under the Title 1.1.4rant, the project director must keep a contin-uous written account of the process and procedures used to plan and run

54

58

the program so that other schools interested in replication will be ableto take advantage of what has been learned during the year. The schoolis open to visitors who want ,to take a firsthand look at "Saturation Learn-ing" and to see the teacher-counselor program in operation. For more in-formation, contact Sister Marie Andre, R&M, Project Director, St. XavierAcademy, 60 Broad Street, Providence, Rhode Island 02903 (401/421-2515).

Bringing Together Parents, Teachers, Students: The CuMberland (RhodeIsland) School District says it will incorporate any "beneficial aspects"of Project GROW, 'a Title III project operating at a private school in its'area, the Mercymount Day School. The Cumberland Schools' superintendentincluded this statemen part of the application to the spate for fundingof the nonpublic scho project.

Under Project GROW, small groups ofparents, teachers and studentscome together weekly to discuss how the educational process should bechanged to better meet the needs of the students. In addition, the projectis trying to fill the communication gap that exists among members of thegroups. Two consultants, one in education and one in guidance, work withthe groups.

The Day School's description of the project says representatives fromthe public schools were involved in planning the project and one of thepublic school staff also volunteered to help in the evaluation. The projectwill complete its first year of funding under Title III in June 1975. Formore information, contact Sister Mary Pendergast, RSM, Project Director,55 Tanner Street, Providence, Rhode Island (401/861-1377).

ti

Louisiana Projects Show Early Involvement'

Program for Low Achievers in Mathematics (PLAM) : A Title III projectin Lafayette Parish, Lafayette, La., aims at developing a positive attitudetoward mathematics, specifically, and school, generally, among low achieversin the public and nonpublic schools of four parishes (counties).

Dale Frederick, Director of PLAM, says personnel from the nonpublicschools were involved in the project "as early as the plannin stages."Frederick reports that 3,066 public school students and 217 Alhpublic schoolstudents were involved in the project during fiscal 1974, the year in whichit waslialidated as an "exemplary" project suitable for adoption by otherschool districts.

ti

The project provides intensive inservice training to teachers. Duringw, fiscal 1974, five nonpublic school teachers and 35 public school teachersparticipated in the training.

The mathemati teacher in each parish was responsible for visitingthe nonpublic schools and providing them with materials such as mathematicsbooklets developed especially for the low achiever. The supervisor of thediocese and the principals of the schools serve as liaison persons in theproject. For more information, contact Dale Frederick, Project Director,Lafayette Parish School Board, PO Drawer 2158, Lafayette, La. 70501(318/232-2620).

4

.55

59

Individualized Reading Instruction for Students (IRIS): IRIS is inits third year as a Title III project operating in Rapidep Parish,Alexandria, La. Its purpose is to,provide personalized reading instruc-tion in which a student competes with himself in reading adhievemeht ratherthan with other students. Walter B. Gatlin, Project Director, reports theinvolvement of 543 students in grades 1-12 and 32 teachers from the publicschools as well as 210 students and 13 teachers from the nonpublic schools.

Gatlin says nonpublic school participation was initiated in the earlyplanning phase of the project by Travis Funderburk,'Assistant Superintendentof Instruction for the Rapides Parish (public) Schools. Included in theplanning were .the superintendent of the diocesan schbols, the uincipalof the nonpublic elementary school and the guidance counselor for thenonpublic secondary school.

All services of the project, Gatlin says, are equally provided tothe public and nonpublic participants. The services include: inservicetraining for all teachers and aides; materials and equipment to all schoolson the basis of school needs in relation to the project computer servicesto all schools; supervision of the project in all schools by the Title IIIstaff; and testing services to all students.

Every six weeks, each nonpublic and public school is provided computerprintouts which track student progress, the effectiveness of materials usedand other data gathered by the project. Services provided to the nonpublicscnools participaats are offered "within the nonpublic schools "as an ongoingprocess of the instructional program," Gatlin states.- He concludes thatpublic and nonpublic participants are succeeding equally well in the project.For more information, contact Walter B. Gatlin, Project Director, RapidesParish School Board, PO Box 1230, Alexandria, La. 71301 (318/442-1301).

Volunteers for the Public(and Lutheran Schools

Project Utilize, Cleveland, Ohio, did what the local Lutheran MemorialSchool had wanted to do for a long way. It providel funds for the trainingof volunteers and for the teachers who would be working with the volunteers.The Lutheran Memorial School is an inter?arish school operated by Christ,St. Luke and Trinity Luthdran Churches on Cleveland's west'side. Enrolledare approximately 200 pupils from age 4 through the eighth grade. ,

The Cleveland Public Schools invited the nonpublic schools to partici-pate in the Title III project and included on the advisory committee teach-ers, principals and supervisors from both the pub4c and nonpublic schools.

Under the projects, administrators and teachers attended seminars onthe use of volunteers in the classroom, and the volunteers were trainedin several sessions.

Following is the description of what the volunteers contributed tothe classrooms, as contained in the "Innovations Notebook" published bythe Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod:

56

60,

"The volunteers were asked to come to the school once a week.

,Each'volunteer worked individually with three students for one-half hour each.' The session was designed to make learning fun.The pupils selected needed help in either reading or math. Thechild was given a ten item pretest on a s ?ecific skill on whichhe was not able to achieve more than 20 percent accuracy. After'working with the volunter, the same test was administered.When the child mastered 30 percent accuracy on the test he movedto a new skill. The process then was repeated."

The Notebook reports that most of the tethers who utilized the ser-vices of a volunteer this year have requested a volunteer for next year.Additionhl teachers have requested help. And, "the present volunteershave promised to return in the fall."

Environmental Instruction for all of WisconstA

Project I-C-E, under the enthusiastidleadership of Project DirtorRobert Warpinski, reports that it has encouraged all teachers to incorpo-rate environmental concerns as an integral part of instruction for allgrades and subject,. areas. In operation since,1969, I-C-E (Instruction-Curriculum-Environned9 has a whole region to draw on--which means a po-tenaal audience of 53 public schoo d#stricts and 122 non 'public schools.

I-C-E materials and services include environmental education guidesfor all K-12 subjec-s, an environmental resource materials centers, con-sultant and special program services for schools and community groups,training and outdoor workshops for teachers and a monthly newsletter.

Warpinski, in describing nonpublic school participation in the project,quotei the Wisconsin Guidelines for Title III. They specifidally statethat funded projects must silo./ evidence of nonpublic school "participation,observation, visitation, aqd/or dissemination of information." Conse-quently, he says, Reverend Richard Kleiber, then the Green Bay DiocesanSuperintendent of Schools, was a member of the initial task force in 1968.

As planning progressed, Reverend Mark Schomer, Diocesan Directorof Instruction, became a member of a four-person planning team to carryout the needs assessment and. to write the first proposal. During 1969-70,as districts surveyed their local needs, the project directed that fourof the representatives on each 21 person committee were to be from thenonpublic school sector. In the final aspects of thenteds assessments,13 nonpublic schoql principals joined the 53 district administrators. Ineach case, the number of nonpublic school representatives involved invarious aspects of planning was based on the proportion of nonpublic schoolstudents (20 percent) in the State of Wisconsin.

IThe advisory board for the project is drawn from the three 'regional

service agencies in the area. Each agency has four representatives, includ-ing the coordinator, two public school representatives and one nonpublicschool representative.

57

61'

so.

The major activity of the project--the development of the environmentaleducation curriculum guides--involved 36 teachers from the nonpublic schools(mostly Catholic and Lutheran) and 199 from the public schools. Every

school and district in the project area received an appropriate (gradelevel/subject area) master set of the environmental guides, Warpinski says.This means that 122.such sets were sent to the nonpublic schools withindividual requests from teachers honored on a complimentary basis.

The nonpublic schools also were involved in pilot testing the environ-mental program aa d in the inservice training. Three of the 13 area schoolsthat serves in the pilot effort were nonpublic schools (two Catholic, oneLutheran). "General inservice to introduce the environmental educationprogram and project services to area teachers included numerous nonpublicschools," Warpinski says.

The Green Bay Catholic School Diocese helped in the disseminationof the project by making available free booth space at the Catholic schools'annual teachers conference.

In -addition to free distribution of. the 39 environmental guides tolocal teachers, the services of the Resource Center and the distributionof the project's newsletter, all project staff members, including theenvironmental education,specialist, are available to all area schools."There has been no distinction between-theepublic and the nonpublic schoolsin all these service functions," Warpinski notes. They include specialprograms, inservice, workshops, individual,or small group planning and, insome cases, specialized activities such as assisting with field trips andcamping programs.

r When asked when and where project services were made available tononpublic school participants, the project director replied "any time and

lkany lace." "Being a broad regional project covering all or parts ofthit en counties, the concept of serving nonpublic schools on publicpremises is generally impractical." lastead, he says, specific needs andcircumstances dictate the time and the place of the programs and services.Although many group, of nonpublic school staffs have traveled to the

ISSResource Center for inservice programs, others have bee

)1

conducted at

nonpublic school facilities when travel was a problem. P lic facilities,

such as a county arena have been used, as have the county park when afield trip was planned. "Timewise, school hOurs, after school, eveningsand weekends have all been used for service functions," the project di-rector reports.

Warpinski maintains that the project has been equally successfulwith both the public and the nonpublic sectors "because environmentaleducation is nonsectarian." 'If anything is different about the two sectors, 0

he adds, it's the fact that the "nonpublic schoOls, because of pure eco-nomics, generally demonstrate a greater eagerness and enthusiasm whenservices and materials are available at very low cost or with , t any charges.

Similarly, they are more given to expressions of gratitude f-- Title IIIservices and that it does not discriminate against them."

58

62

For more information, contact Robert Warpinski, Project Director,Project I-C-E, Cooperative Educational Services Agency No. 9, 1927 MainStreet, Green Bay, Wisconsin 54301 (414/468-7464).

1.

Inservice Training Plus Administrative Commitment

In Arizona, a Title III project called ACIL (Arizona. Consortium forIndividualized Learning) is attempting to change instructional methodsand classroom attitude in the state's public and nonpublic schools. ACIL,

which was adapted from a Utah validated title III project known as U-Sail,is teaching teachers how to manage their classrooms, to group studentsfor maximum learning, to be flexible in the use of time and materials andto allow all students "to experience the benefits and the joy of learningon their own in a learning center." (For a more complete descrii ion,see the article on ACIL in the Summer 1974 issue of the Title III Quarterly,published by the National Advisory Council on Supplementary Centers andServices.)

Although ACIL first started in mid-473, the immediate demand was sogreat that the project could nbt keep.up with all the requests for in-service training from public school districts. In the first year, dis-tricts enrolling approximately 9,000 students became involved in the project.At that time, one nonpublic school in the Phoenix Diocese participatedin the program. The superintendent of the. Diocese was a nonvoting memberof the ACIL Executive Board.

During thewas expanded toteachers in thecomparison, 815involved in the

second year of the project, nonpublic school participationthe Tucson Diocese with two schools involved. Forty-fiveschools, with 1,350 students, were involved in ACIL. By

teachers and 24,450 students in the public schools I.ereproject during the second year.

ACIL provides the same types of services to participants from bothpublic and nonpublic schools, i.e., inservice training for teachers, sup-plementary curriculum materials, followup services to insure that theprogram is properly implemented at the classroom level.

Because of the nature gt the program, there is lots of interactionand monitoring activities cried out by the project staff. An ACIL"Implementor" works in each school to help the principal and the teachersget the program going. The Iqplementors send regular weekly and monthlyreports to Project Director L. Leon Webb, who also visits all of theschools to make on-site evaluations.

Inservice training has been provided in both public and nonpublicfacilities on an alternating basis. Because of the greater amount ofparticipation by the public schools, however, more of the training ses-sions have taken place in public school facilities. /

Webb says the project has experienced "cutstandiohg" success withboth public and nonpublic school teachers because they "have been very

accepting of the process that ACIL represents." Another reason for ACIL'ssuccess, Webb says, is the project's practice of involving the superin-tendent and the principal. The superintendent of the participating district,whether public or nonpublic, is automatically a member of the ACIL ExecutiveBoard. "Since-these superintendents make the policf for the ACIL program,they are actively involved in promoting the program and have taken a verysincere interest in seeing the program implemented properly." Principalsof all participating schools receive a separate inservice training program.

For more information on ACIL, contact L. Leon Webb, Project Director,Arizona Consortium for Individualized Learning, 4643 E. Thomas Rd., Phoenix,Arizona, 85018 (602/959-6710).

60

CA

lit

1

CHAPTER VIII

A PROFILE: TITLE III IN CALIFORNIA

California ranks number five in the National Catholic EducationalAssociation's line-up of states containing the largest number of studentsenrolled in Catholic schools. NCEA reports that 263,400 of California'sstudent population were attending Catholic schools in 1973-74. An ad-ditional 148,425 students were enrolled,in other church related and pri-vate schools, for a total nonpublic school enrollment of 411,835. Thismeans the nonpublic school enrollment is approximately 10 percent of thestate's total enrollment--a staggering 4.5 million students.

How Do Nonpublic Schools Fare in Title III?

Due to the size of its student population, California is one of themain benefactors of ESEA Title III. In early February 1975, for example,the State Title III office was responsible for over 150 projects, fundedat $10.6 milli?.

An unofficial report from California on the participation of non-public school children in federally funded programs indicated that 4,313such children participated directly in Title III programs in 1972-73, withanothe15,464 listed as "indirect participants." The report also notedthat 219 nonpublic schbol teachers were involved as direct participantsand 394 as indirect participants. Ir. addition, 28,924 students from '258nonpublic schools were tested at a cost of $28,922.60, with funds providedunder the Guidance and Testing portion of Title III, according to thestate report.

4

More recently, in September 1974, the State TitleIII office conductedanother survey which asked the Title III project directors to report notonly the number of nonpublic school participants but also to report addi-tional detailson that involvement. (A copy of the questionnaire is con-tained is the Appendix to this repott.)

Among the findings of the survey were the following:

Question: Within the attendance boundaries of your project school(s),are there any nonpublic schools?

Reply: Yes--120; No--28

Question: How many (nonpublic) students are directly involved?

Reply: 12,555 students. (Note: Individual projects reportedthat from 3 to 4,500 nonpublic school students wereinvolved directly in the project.)

61

65 I'

1

Question: how many (nonpublic) students are indirectly involved?

Reply: 6,233 students. (Note: Individual projects reportedthat from 4 to 600 students were involved indirectlyin the project.)

Question: Are nonpublic school teachers involved in pre- or in-

service training?

Yes,-66;' No--55. (Note: Projects that answered Yes-to this question reported that 483 nonpublic schoolteach-ers were involved or would be involved in training.)

Question: Do nonpublic schools use project materials orequipment?

Reply: 60 projects reported that nonpublic schools use projectmaterials; 30 projects reported that nonpublic schoolsuse project equipment.

Catholic Conference First Nudges Them Pushes

The California Catholic Conference, under the leadership of theDirector of the Division of Education, Joseph P. McElligott, has been themajor advocate in attempts to attain more benefits under Title III forthe state's nonpublic school students and teachers.

"Let's just say we've got nowhere to go but up," said McElligott inan interview in his Sacramento office. McElligott, who acts as both liaisonand trouble-shooter for the state's Catholic schools in their dealings'with the State Department of Education, said simply "the involvement ofour schools has been insufficient."

For a long time, McElligott said, "Title III was a nebulous kind of

thing to us., We were much more concerned about Title I' of ESEA." As we

looked into Title III, we found there were to main problems for nonpublicschools at the local lev$l: lack of involvement or late involvement.McElligott said he trii.ed to little avail to get the state's Title IIIoffice to change its administrative and monitoring policies, and then hebrought the matter before the Federal Aid Committee of the State Board .

of Education. At the meeting of the Committee, McElligott reported onfour specific projects that he -had investigated, only to find no involve-ment or token involvement of the nonpublic schools in planning the project.Nevertheless, each was being recommended to the Board for funding. (Each of

the applications did contain a sign-off statement from a local nonpublicschool administrator, said the chairman of the Advisory Council.)

-"Actually, I could have cited 50 of, the second and third year projects

in which I found a similar situation," McElligott said. The main resultof McElligott's appearance has been that the State Title III office istaking steps to make its own staff as well as the local education agenciesand county offices (legal applicants for Title III projects) more awareof the legal mandates on the involvement and participation of nonpublicschool students and teachers.

62

66

For the first time ever--in September 1974--the state Title III officenotified the state's nonpublic schools of the intent of and purposes ofTitle III and advised them to contact the local public school inItheirarea to find out if it planned to submit a project proposal. McElligottmaintains that this is one of the implicit functions of the state Title .III office. "We still tell our people in workshoOlg however, that it istheir duty to be alert to what is going on concerning the federally fundedprojects in-which their students and teachers might be Able to benefit."

41.

On a more positive note, McElligott says he.thinks the involvementof nonpublic schools could help the public schools to make proposed projectsmore viable and more competitive. "The nature and flexibility of the non-public schools allow them to do more things than many public schools."As an example, he cited a nonpublic school that shares its site With ahospital or other social agency--a "great site" for a career education orother similar project.

"We could offer great opportunities to set up demonstration bilingualeducation programs here in the state," he noted. "We have a significantnumber of teaching orders of sisters who come from Mexico. We also havePjiilippino and Chinese sisters and others who, in their training in othercountries, were required to learn the fundamentals and the teaching skillsin instructing students in two languages.

"Incidentally, we have at least 2 percent more minority group stu-dents in this state than the public schools, due to the age of our schoolsand their location, which is usually in the older, poorer areas. I knowof one school," he said, "where 90 percent of the students are black and65 percent of them are non- Catholic."

As another example of potential liaison, McElligott mentioned thepractice in some dioceses of building elementary and secondary schoolson the same tract. "This is an ideal situation for a cross-age tutoringproject."

New Directions

The survey on participation conducted by the state Title III officewas one of the results of meetings of state Title III officials, the state'snonpublic school consultant, Newton Chase, and representatives of non-.

public schools, including McElligott.

Other new directions were reviewed by Robert D. Welty, AssistantProgram Administrator for Title III in the California Department of Edu-cation. In an interview for this report, Welty emphasized the state'spositive forward directioi in getting nonpublic school students involvedin Title III. In the past, he said, "our directives (on the nonpublicschools) were not very clear" and the assurances were not taken veryseriously.

0

In 1973, Welty said, the first step was taken to make the projectsmore aware of the requirements on nonpublic school participation. At that

44f,

63

1 67

I\

time, the state Title IIIoffice inserted a W1W form in the application.

for projects (see Appendix). It required the project applicant to include,participation data'and required furkher that the School personnel "in

authority" at nearby nonpublic schools sign off on the application. The

form specified that the personnel "in authority" was to be "equivalent

to a superintendent, consultant or principal."

The new application form also required:

o That the statement_ on honpublic school involvement be returnedwith the application, even if no nonpublic school students wereto'be involved in the project.

o .That-the applicant, involve eligible nonpublic school personnelin the planning for the application. "Invo vement ideallyshould begin in October or November."

o That the original copy of the application bear "originalsignatures."

Another new practice in the.state, which went tnto effect in the 1974-

A

75 school year, is a review of the nonpublic school participation by themonitoring team during its annual on-site visitation to all projects.Team members are instructed that they must talk with the appropriate per-son from the local nonpublic school(s) to ascertain the amount and typeof involvement. Theon-site visitations ars conducted by seven team memrbers overh,a three-month period, January tolMarch. A project that is in

noncompliance with any regulations or requirements, including any aspectof the requirement on nonpublic school participation, is notifed by April 1-what it must dp to get back into the good graces of the Title III office.

\

What'recoUse does the state have if .a district does not comply withthe regulations or requirements? Welty says the most powerful recourseislthe threat of nonapproval for continuation money. This step would of

be taken until July 1, when the new'fiscal year starts. As in other states,

California rarely terminates a Title III project in mid- year - -for any

reason.

-The procedure described above applies to the new, or "first-year"projects only. For those already in operation, a different procedure'onnonpublic school participation is to be used. Beginning with fiscal 1976the second- and third-year projects will be required to comply with themandates on nonpublic school participation, if they are not already doing

so. This could mean they will have to start providing benefits for anyeligible nonpublic school students and teachers. If they refuse to come

into compliance, Welty says, they will (tot receive continuation funds.

In another move, the State Title III office sent to 2,400 nonpublicschool administrative personnel a letter containing general informationon Title III and an announcement of the deadline for new project applica-tions. This is the first time such a letter has been sent and, Welty

64

68

C

points out, it may be the first time that y of California's administra-tive offices for federally funded programs has taken such a step. In

the letter, dated September 15, i974, J. R Schaeffer, Title I/I's ProgramAdministrator, says:

"Public school districti and county offices of educationare legal applicants for finds und(ir Title III. The lawdoes require that nonpublic school children in the areato be served must have educational needs of the type whichthe project is designed to meet, and these children shallbe offered effective participation on an equitable- basisin Title III programs. Also, the staffs of nonpublicschools can participate in training sessions and secureproject materials....

"Nonpublic school personnel are encouraged to contact thepublic school district in which their school is locatedand determine if any ESEA Title 'III projects will be sub-mitted.- Also, most nonpublic schools -re within the at-tendance area of an individual public lementarror secondaryschool and, therefore, staff are encol raged to contact theplincipal to determine if the local p,olic school is submit-ting an application...."

Th..: letter also advised the nonpublic schools to contact their admin-istrative offices in January (1975) to secure the names of public schooldistricts that would be submitting continuation applications in April.The administrative c.ffices, which were listed in the letter, were given aset of the project writing guidelines for Title III projects to sharewith interested nonpublic schools.

65

69

CHAP,TER IX

WHAT'S '."W AT THE.FEDERAL AND STATE LEVEL?

'"The Office of Education has been so totally insensitive and inactiveon this problem (nonpublic school participation in federally funded projects)that I cannot imagine any significant change." This conclusion,was drawnby one nonpublic school administrator in his'coMments for this report.

Nevertheless, there are some mew initiatives at the federal level.For the first time, for example, representatives of nonpublic school organ-izations participated as "306 project readers." The three representatives,Rc$bert Lamborn of CAPE, Rev. Frank'Bredeweg of the National Catholic Edu-cational Association, and Richard E. Duffy Orthe U.S. Catholic.Conference,reviewed incoming project applications from throughout the country forfunding under Section 306, the Commissioner's discretionary portion ofTitle III funds.

The three reviewers read 100,grantepplications, evaluating-them onthe basis of nonpublic school participation. They concurred: "The largemajority of applications reviewed' made no reference to the involvement ofnonpublic school officials in the planning nor to the participation,ofnonpublic school pupi'3." TheyYadded that most applicants overlooked ordisregarded a portion of the application asking for a description of thenonpublic school participations The reviewers suggested that changes bemade in the applicatiod form itself and that the changes make clear tg theapplicant "that inclusion of the nonpublic sector could be a pivotalmatter."

Developer /Demonstrator and. State Facilitator )Pro cts

In February 1975, US E started to emphasize nonpublic school involve-ment in two types of prof cts funded under Section 306 of Title IIIthoseknown as developer/demonstrator and state.facilitator'projects. Both.types of projects aim at making known and helpineto disseminate exemplaryprojects. A Feb. 13, 1975, memorandum from Lee Wickline, Director of theDivision of Supplementary Centers and ServI'ces, detailed the new guidelineson nonpublic school participation which will be used in funding the lastround of 306 projects, starting in July 1975. -Under the newly approvedProcedures, bpth the developer/demonstrators and the state facilitatcrsare to Bake "aggressive steps toy inform nonpublic-schools of their capabil-ities and services." USOE lists two alternative strategies that may befollowed by the developer/demonstrator (DD) and the state facilitator (SF).Una', the first alternative, these are:the 'procedures to be followed:

1. Either the L'A or the nonpublic school may initiate action tosecure the services of an SF or a DD.

66

'70

ti

2. Whichever takes the initiative should approach the other atthe local level to-determine whether they share a commoninterest in the diffusion effort and in a particular programarea. If this is the case, they should proceed together to

avail themselves of the SF and/or DD services.

3. If only one, either LEA or nonpublic school, is interested*

in the diffusion effort, the interested party must secure aletter from the highest ranking official of the noninterestedparty documenting that contact has bepn made but that the LEAor nonpublic school does not wish to participate. The inter-ested party may then seek the services of the SF-or DDindependently.

4. If both LEA and nonpublic schools are interest in the dif-fusion effort but in different examplary progr ms, they areencouraged-to work cooperatively in securing services asfar as is practicable.

A5. When an LEA or nonpublic school in a local setting is the only

program adopter or when each is adopting a different program,.observation opportunities should be afforded all parties.

A possible acceptable alternative to this procedure, says USOE, takesinto account a specific SF diffusion strategy. In this case, the SF im-plements a comprehensive awareness strategy with all eligible public andnonpublic schools in the state or section of a state which constitutesthe SF's target area.' Through responding or not responding at variouspoints in the process, public.and nonpublic schools indepeno2ntly selectthemselves in or out of the diffusion effort. Ultimately services are.provided to LEA's and nonpublic schools wishing to participate as nearlyas possible in proportion to the relative number of school children en-rolled in each cetegory within the state or smaller target area'of the SF.This approach is an acceptable alternative only when the SF has made thesame initial effort to inform both public and nonpublic school and is em-ploying a self-selection strategy.

Note: See the description of the State Facilitator project inMassachusetts on pages 47-49.

8

.*#

The state facilitators and developer/demonstrators will be requiredto maintain'separate statistics for participants from the public and non-public schools. They will have to show in their criteria how opportunitiesfor participation will.be provided for nonpublic schools and if an ad-visory,council called for, they. must provide for nonpublic school repre-sentatives on the council,. Wickline said.

No Validation without Nonpublic School Participation

Starting with the projecti to be validated by state teams in 1975,TitlerIII projects will have a new'criteria to meet for validation. They

3

0.67

must be able toy prove that they have followed/ the 1.aw in its mandates forthe participation of nonpublic schools and the invelvement of nonpublicschool children or teachers.

Commissioner Bell: 'Aware of Stronger Mandate'

U.S. Commissioner of Education Terrel H. Bell, on the job only sinceJune of 1974,says he will use the power of his office to follow the letter

and the. spirit of education, laws. For the nonpublic schools, this may be

a portentous sign of better times.

"I want the private or nonpublic school; community to know that I amwell aware of the stronger mandate for nonpublic school participation inthe various education programs," Bell said in a message especially preparedfor Outlook, the monthly newsletter of the Council for American PublicEducation (CAPE). "I want you to know," Bell continued, "that-we willcarry out the spirit of the act in providing benefits -t6-the children in

both our public and nonpublic schools."

USOE staff.members who man the regional offices.were also told in

a memo dated August 1974 to start learning the statuatory provision of the

Education Amendments of 1974.- In the memo, Bell told the commissionersto "emphasize to-your program Manage* that they have a responsibilitylto

study and to know the legislative history of their programs regarding non-public school participation. We need to get the problems of the past be-hind us," the COmmissioner said. "We need to be helpful also in the newparts of the law where it is apparent that both public and nonpublic schoolstudents should be involved."

The,Commissioner is the person finally responsible for investigatingany alleged violations of the legal provisions mandating the involvement

of nonpublic schoolchildren. In addition, he is the designated official

who must implement the bypass proVision, if necessary. Although his ob-

jective is to work out as many of the problems as possible without resortingto bypass, he has stated that use of 'the bypass in the Case of Missouri

"was important" and "was the right thing to do."

In one recent incident, Bell's quick action has already been noted.The incident came about when Lyman V. Ginger, Kentucky Superintendent ofPublic Instruction, applied a ruling by the State Attorney General tothe effect that any services provided by public school teachers on privateschool premises under Title I would be unconstitutional. At this Point,

the action by Ginger came to the attention of Kentucky Congressman CarlD. Perkins, who is also chairman of the House Committee on Education andLabor.

Parkins promptly wrote to Bell, urging him to "act quickly" in orderto assure that Title I services would be available to educationally deprived

school children in parochial and private schools in Kentucky. In his letter,

Perkins gave his own interpretation of the SUpreme Court decision in

Wheeler v,Jarrera. This case indicates, he- -said, that "using Title I

68

72

0funds for on-the-premises parochial school instruction by a public schoolteacher under certain circumstances is within the constitutional limitationsof the First Amendment.

1 0

"I believe," Perkins added, "that the legislation as it was writtenin 1965 is in full conformity with the Supreme Court's opinions on theconstitutionality of providing public funds for the education of privateschool children."

Within days after receiving Perkins' letter, Commissioner Bell passedthgword along to the Kentucky Superintendent. "It is clear," Bell wroteto/Ginger, "there can be no allowance for a state agency to administer itsTitle I program in such manner as to result in eligible nonpublic schoolstudents receiving Title I services that are anything less than comparableto those provided to public school children:

"Furthermore," Bell noted, "it is improper for a state agency toapprove applications of LEA's for assistance under Title I which make noprovision for comparable services to eligible nonpublic school children."

This manner of "working things out" soon after a discrepancy is notedis favored by Congress for several reasons: 'it'eliminates the legal andadministrative costs of putting bypass into effect; it allows for differencesto be settled sooner thad would be possible under the stipulated amount oftime allowable in implementing bypass; and-it reduces or eases thefederal/state/local confrontations implicit in situations that requireresolution by bypass.

USOE's Office of Nonpublic Educational Services

Commissioner Bell has established an Office, of Nonpublic EducationalServices within the U.S. ffice of Education. Dwight Crum, who formerlyserved as liaison betwe nonpublic educators and USOE, was named Directorof the new office.

Crum said he has noted an increase in the information flow sincethe opening of the new office. Due to his efforts, USOE now has a listof nonpublic school representatives who may receive announcements of up-coming grants and new programs at the same time they are sent to thepublic schools.

To contact Dwight Crum, write to him at the Office of Nonpublic Educa-tional Services, U.S. Office of Education, Room 4053, 400 Maryland Ave.,S.W., Washington, D.C. 20202.

Nonpublic School Coordinators at the State Level

Nine state departments of education have assigned the j obpublic school coordinator as a full-time position. They are:California, Maryland, Net,/ Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North

Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and Washington. (A listing of allsons, part- and full-time, is included in the Appendix.)

69

73

of non-

Carolina,

liaison per-

1

!

tThe responsibilities of the job vary from state O state, but the

prime responsibilities are to provide information on Carting a new school,

to provide safekeeping for the records of defunct sc,00ls, and to maintainrecords.

Serving as an advocate for the nonpublic schools is not generallythe purpose nor the function of the job.

Persons who have been assigned the liaison job as a part-time responsi-bility (at the request of USOE) have differing views on what they can andare supposed to do. Edwin E. Steinbrecher, Colorado Assistant Superintendent,says he sees the job as a "temporary or interim assignment- -one of review-ing the implications of the new federal regulations regarding involvementof nonpublic schools."

Another pers n who handles the job as a part-time responsibility-saidhe got the Jo ecauSe" USOE insisted, that his chief state school officername someone to the job. "That was two years ago. Needless to say, the

role at thispoint is pretty well undefined...."

In Minnesota, Sigurd J. Ode, Assistant to the State Commissioner ofEducation, works with a- 29-member Study Committee for Public-Private-Parochial Education. The group, with representatives from thelabinetof the State Deprtment of Education and private and parochfhltchools,meets about six times,a years to discuss and evaluate services for the ,non-public schools. The purpose of the group, as stated by Commissioner HardCasmey in April 1970, is to assist everyone in the group "to understandthe issues we mutually face" and to "be aware of one another's problems."

From Hawaii, Edmund K. Toma, the acting administrator of Accreditationand Private School Licensing, reports that his state has not encounteredany legislative, legal or administrative problems in federally funded pro-jects that mandate cooperation between public and nonpublic schools. "Since

Hawaii is one school system, compliance with the law is monitored by thestate office staff with cooperation from the seven district staffs,"hesays. In addition, one of the duties of his division is to act as liaisonbetween the state's private and public schools.

One state, Wisconsin, is trying to get funding for an educationalconsultant who would serve the dual role of coordinator of nonpublic edu-cational services as well as advocate of nonpublic school participation"in as many programs as possible." According to Wisconsin Assistant Super-intendent Donald E. Dimick, the Departnh'nt included the request as part ofits 1975-77 budget.

In California, the person who fills the role of full time "Consultantin Private School Education" for the' State Department of Education is Newton

K. Chase.

Chase says his duties include the following:4

1. Informing and advising groups interested in establishing new pri-vate schools, accreditation, curriculums teachers, transcripts

and admissions.

k

70

74

42. Handling all inquiries and problems concerning nonpdblic schools.

3. Coordinating working relationships between nonpublic schoolsand the Department on such programs as surplus property, foodservices, state textbooks, publications, special education,and all ESEA and other federal programs for which nonpublic school '

children are eligible.'

4. Lilison with the California Executive Council of Nonpublic Schools(the California model of the Council for American Private EdU-cation).

N. . ,

5. Cooperation and ,liaison with the nonpublic school representativein the county hool offices.

6. .Assistance with t e annual process of registering nonpublic schoolsand publishing an annual directory of such schools.

7. Serving as the State Department representative at nonpublic schoOlmeetings and workshops.

Although Chase's duties include "coordinating working relationshipsbetween nonpublic schools and the Department of Educi4oft en such programsas ESEA (No. 3), he says he cannot even begin to cope frith the actualproblems or inequities in the field involving the relationships betweennonpublic schools and the local education agencies. It is next to impos-

sible to be fully informed and involved "other than in a general way" inall the various federal programs, he says. One of the main problems, henotes, is the general lack of understanding and communication on the programs.

# The nonpublic schools, Chase says candidly, "have not really receivedthe attention and the services required by federal regulations though thisis true in other states as well." Chase says the most he is able to do,as his office is presently constituted, is to act as a "referral service"by putting,those who are interested in specific provisions of a program intouch with the appropriate person in the Department of Education.

71

75

CHASTERX

RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE NATIONAL ADVISORY COUNCIL

In its 1975 Annual Report, the National Advisory Council on Supple-mentary Centers and Services included three recommendations to the Presidentand the Congress onsnonpublic school participation. They are as follows;

To insure that nonpublic. schools are included in all ESEATitle III and/or Title IV program in which they are eligibleto participate and insure the improvement of all schools- -public and nonpublic--the National Advisory Gouncil'makesthree recommendations:

1. That state education agencies and state advisory councilsinsure that nonpublic school representatives are involved idthe needs assessmentj, planning, development, operation and

evaluation of all projects in which they are eligible toparticipate.

2. That the U S. Office of Education and state education agenciesdevelop procedures whereby nonpublic schools may initiate projectproposals for submission by ant; through a local education agenCy.

3. That the U.S. Office of Education develop and implement regu-lations whereby state education agencies are required to rejectany project application which does not include documentaryevidence, filled out and signed by nonpublic school officials,showing that appropriate nonpublic school officials were in-volved in the 'planning process from the earliest planningstages.

72

76

Appendix

NONPROFIT PRIVATE SCHOOL REPRESENTATIVES ON ESEA TITLE III

STATE ADVISORY COUNCILS (FISCAL YEAR 1975)

Rev.eAalliam HanokDiocese of Birmingham AY2317 'Highland Avenue

Birmingham, AL

Rev. Richard SaudisArchdioceseAnchorage, AK

Sister Dorothy Ann Doyle, O.P.Diocese of TUscon64 West OchoaTucson, AZ 85701(602) 792-3410

"Rev. William Beck900 West Cross StreetBenton, AR(501) 778-5186

Mrs. Frayda Ornstein0 K Center1670 Zenobia StreetDenver, CO 80204

Mr. Robert O'FarrellDiocese of Norwich43 Perkins AvenueNorwich, CT

Mr. William KehoeAssistant SuperintendentDiocese of Wilmington1626 North Union StreetWilmington, DE 19803(302) 652-3113

father Frank MurphySuperintendent of SchoolsArchdiocese of Washington, DC1200 17th Street, NWWashington, DC 20036

Rev. Jerome E. DiffleyAssociate SuperintendentDioce of St: Petersburg6363 9f Avenue, NorthSt. Pet rsburg, FL 33710

1 (813) 344-1611

Sister Mary Fidelis BarraganPrincipalMbunt de Sales High School--Macon, GA 31208

Mr. Sigfried RomlerPdnahou AcademyHonolulu, HA

Sister Scholastica UhlenrottPrairie High SchoolCottonwood, ID

Dr. M. P. HellerLoyola University820 No. Michigan AvenueChicago, IL 60611

(312) 670-3038

Rev. James SeculoffSuperintendent of SchoolsDiocese of Fort Wayne and South Bend

PO Box 390Ft. Wayne, IN 46801

Rev. W. Robert SchmidtDiocese of Davenport81`1 Kahl Building

Davenport, pi

Rev. Charles Regan424 North BroadwayWichita, KS 67202

73

77

4

Mt. Joseph M. McGee435 South Fifth StreetLouisville, KY 40202(502) 585-4158

Dr. Charles FortierNotre Dame Seminary2901 S. Carrollton AvenueNew Orleans, LA 70118(504) 866-7426

Mr. Arthur Dexter`Principal

Lincoln AcademyNewcastle, ME 04553(207) 563-5374

Mr. Patrick CananCoordinator of Federal ProgramsCatholic Office of EducationArchdioCese of Washington, DCRoom 600, 1200 17th St., NWWashington; DC 20036

Rev. Eugene SullivanAssociate SuperiitendentArchdiocesan Schools468 Beacon StreetBoston, MA 02115

Msgr. 11. H. Zerfas

Supertintendent of SchoolsDiocese of Grand Rapids350 Sheldon Avenue, SEGrand Rapids, MI 49502(616) 459-4334

Mr. Leroy BrownMinnesota Catholic Education

AssociationSt. Paul, MN

Sister Mary Cyrena HarkinsCoordinator of Special EducationMississippi Catholic SchoolsPO Box 2248Jackson, MS 29205(601) 948-6555

Msgr. Gerald PoelkerRoute 3

Bowling Green, MO 63334(314) 324-5545

Rev. John J. McCoyPO Box 3668Butte, MT 59701

(406) 792-9500

Father Thomas O'BrienSuperintendent of SchoolsOmaha Archdiocese3212 North 60th StreetPO Box 4129Omaha, NB 68104

(402) 551-2042

Rev. George C. Wolf400 Bartlett StreetReno, NV

Sister Jacqueline HebertCurriculum Coordinator2321 Elm StreetManchester, NH 03104(603) 669-4298

Mr. Joseph Fittipaldi /4CoordinatorDepar6ent of Education495 W. State StreetNew Jersey Catholic ConferenceTrenton, NJ 08618(609) 599-2110

. Ms. Joan GusinowPO Box 14491Albuquerque, NM 87111(505) 294-0274

Sister Joarr'Arnolor

Superintendent Catholic Schools1408 Genesee StreetUtica, NY 13502(315N35-2111

Rev. Donald StaibAdministratorCharlotte Catholic High School3100 Park RoadCharlotte, NC 28209

Rev. 12mond AydtMercy HospitalBox KWilliston, ND 58801

(701) 572-6731

74

78

Rev. Mgr. Bennett C. ApplegateMt. Carmel Hospital793 W. State StreetColumbus, OH 43222

Sister Rose Clare StieveBox 512Oklahoma City, OK 73101(405) 721-4202

Sister Laura Jean Remington3750 Lancaster Dr., NESalem, OR 97303(503) 399-7900

Rev. Paul CurranAssistant SuperintendentPhiladelphia Archdiocese222 N. 17th StreetPhiladelphia, PA 19103,(215) 587-3718

Sister Therese CarnellierThe Diocesean OfficeCathedral SquareProvidence, ma 02903

Rev. John Bond04(Superintendent for th iocesan

System of Catholic Schools foeSouth Carolina

119 Broad StreetCharleston, SC

Sister Faith/SitDiocese of io Falls3000 W. 41st StreetSioux Falls, SD 57105(05) 336-6695

Mr. Hubert SmathersPresident

Chilhowee AcademySeymour, TN

Mr. Bernice M. Moon'Hogg FoundationAustin, TX

Mr. John C. Ranier567 No. 603 Wbst.Orem, Utah 84057

Mr. Richard Lane ,,

HeadmasterAustine School for the Deaf120 Maple StreetBrattleboro, VT 05301

(802) 254-4571

Sister Laurdes ShehanDirectorDept. of Education for Catholic

Diocese of RichmondDepartment of Education,817 Cathedral PlaceRichmond, VA 23200

Sister Virginia MtMbnagleForest Ridge Schools4800 139th Street, SEBellevue, WA 98006(206) 641-0700

Rev. Robert H. WanstreetSuperintendentCathlic Schools Wheeling DiocesePO Box 2301300 Byron StreetWheeling, WVA 26003(304) 233-0880

Father Alb I. ThomasDirector EducationBox 661.Diocese of La,CrosseLa Crosse, WI 54601

(608) 788-7700

Sister Mary Rachel FlynnSheridan Catholic School11 S. ColnorSheridan, WY 82801(307) 672-2021

Ms. Laura Jarvis612 W. GeorgiaAnadarka, OK

75

79

Siste rnadette Prdchaska, ESPADioc se of AganaPO 3636Agana Guam 96910

Rev. Jori Lakjobc/o State Department of EducationSaipan, Mariana Islands

c.

-ft

76

Miss Nancy Gatwaltc/o Lutheran Parish SchoolNo. #11.ille Tarne GardeSt. Thomas, Virgin Islands

4

SO

ESEA TITLE III

STATE FACILITATOR PROJECT DIRECTORS

Mr. B. Keith RoseProgram Development Center of N. Calif.,Aymer J. Hamilton BuildingCalifornia State UniversityChico, California 95926

Mr. Harry OsgoodEducational Resources CenterArea Cooperative Educational ervices800 Dixwell.AvenueNew Haven, Connecticut 065ll

Mr. Duane WebbColorado State Facili. NorthernColorado - BRCS830 S. Lincoln'Longmont, Colorado 80501

Mr. Allen ScottFlorlda Facilitator CenterP. of Box 190Chipley, Florida 32428

Mrs. Shirley Menendez415 North BlancheMounds,; Illinois 62964

Di. John S. HandIndiana Facilitator CenterLongansport Community Schools2829 George StreetLogansport,'Indiana 46947

Mr. Gene A. SandersPottawattamie CountyBoard of EducationRoute ICouncil Bluffs, Iowa 51501

7-7

81

Appendix

Mr, Ralph ParishKansas FacilitatorCite Murdock670 N.. Edgemoor

Wichita, Kansas 67208

Mr. Lawrence W. AllenFacilitator DirectorKentucky State Department of Education1609 Plaza TowerFiankfprt, Kentucky 40601

Mr. David P. CrandallExecutive DirectorNetwork of Innovative SchoolsMechanics StreetMerrimac, Massachusetts 01860

Dr. Clare KellerProject INFORMWayne County Intermediate School Dist. -

30555 Michigan AvenueWestlanf, Michigan 48184

Mr. Richard T. HegreStaples Schools524 North Third StreetStaples, Minnesota 56479

Mr. Richard PetersonSouthwest Minn. State CollegeMarshall, Minnesota 56258

Mrs. Diane LassmanMPS/UM Teacher Center155 Peik HallUniversity of MinnesotaMinneapolis, Minnesota 55455

Mrs. Jolene SchuliColumbia Public Schools310 North Pro'idenceColumbia, Missouri 65201

Mr. Glenn ClarksonNebraska - Iowa State Facilitator2407 Chandler RoadBellevue, Nebraska 68005

Mr. Glenn Belden

New Hampshire Ed. Facilitator Project .

7 Broadway, Supervisory Union #56Somersworth, New Hampshire 03878

Dr. Evelyn OgdenOffice of Program Development1000 Sprude Street

a Trenton, New Jersey 08625:

Mr. George H. Smitha, iBernalilao Public Schqols

P. O. Box 6407,Bernalj.11o, New Mecixo 87004'

Mr. Frank MesiahDirector, N.Y. Facilitator ProjectBOCES #1, Erie County, Box JCheektowago, New York 14225

Mr. Paul WellbornState Facilitator ProjectNorthwestern Regional Servic-e CenterP.O. Box 1308North Wilkesboro, North Carolina 28659

Mr. Glen C. ArrantsState Facilitator Project 4

Western Regional Educational Center102 Old Clyde Roilict..!

Canton, Noith Caedlina 28716

Mr. Richard BarnesState Facilitator projectSoutheast Regional Education CenterP.M. Box 1399"

1

Jacksonville, NorthiCarolina 28540

Hr. Grant Johnson". North Dakota Facilitator Pruject

215 0 2Minot, North Dakota 0

. -

Ms. Maxine BrownState Facilitator ProjectNortheast Regional Educational Center 0Box 928Grifton, North Carina 28530

Mr. Robert Byrdzn

State Facilitator ProjectSouthwest Regional Education 4Ater619 Wall Street

Albemarle, North Carolina 28001

4

r.'

ja

Mr. JaStateOhio D

. f65 S.

k Lewisacilitator PrOjectpartment of Educationrunt Street

Columbus, Ohio 43215

Dr. Kenneth ElsnerAssistant SuperintendentEdmond Public SchoolsEdmond, Oklahoma 73034

Mr. Samuel C. NuttCoordinator, Federal ProjectsSouth Umpqua School DistrictMyrtle Creek, Oregon 17457

Mr. Richart BrickleyResearch and Information Services for Ed.198 Allendale RoadKing of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406

78

82

(

Mx. J. B. Under, Jr.Orangeburg District 45578 Ellis Avenue 7' ,

Orangeburg, South Carolina 29115

Mr. Wendall TisherState Facilitator ProjectState Department of EducationPierre, South Dakota 57501

Ms. Gwyn Brownlee'Academic Service DepartmentRegion 10 - Education Service CenterBox 1300Richardson, Texas 75080

Mr. Ken AbramsRo;:;.on XIX - Education Service CenterP. Box 10716El Faso, Texas 79997

Mr. TraVis D. BrownRegion XVII EducatiOn Service Center700 Texas Commerce BuildingLubbock, Texas 97401

Mr. Frank G. BuellRegion XI - Education Service Center2821 Cullen StreetFort Worth, Texas 76107

Mr. David ColeRegion XVI - Education Service Center1601 South ClevelandAmarillo, Texas 79102

Mr. Robert ColemanRegion XII - Education Service CenterWaco, Texas 76703

Dr. Dwain M. EstesRegion XX - Education Service Center.1550 N.E. Loop 410,San Antonio, Texas 78209

Mr. Leroy HendricksRegion 'VII - Education Service Center100 North Riddle Street.Mount Pleasant, Texas 75455

Mr. Jim LewisRegion XVIII - Education Service CenterP. O. Box 6020Midland, Texas 79701

Mr. Hal Mabry,Region IX - Education Sevrice Center3014 Old Seymour RoadWichita Falls, Texas 76309

Mr. Bob ManiseRegion XIV - Education Service, Center-P. O. Box 3236Abilene, Texas 79604

Mr. Joseph B. MoneyRegion I - Education Service Center101 South Tenth StreetEdinburg, Texas 79539

Mr-3. Alene Moore

Region VII - Education Service CenterBldg. "C",. Ross Ave., P.O. Box 1622Kilgore, Texas 75662

r.

Mr. Joe Par!sRegion XIII -'Education Service Center6504 Tracor LandAustin, Texas 78721

Mr. Bill h. PowellRegion III - Education Service Center2710 Hospital DriveVictoria, Texas 77901

$

Dr. Joe StrehleRegion IV - Fducation Service Center202 North Loop WestHouston, Texas 77018

79

83

W. Thomas Tope, Jr.Region II Education Service Center109 North ChaparralCorpus Chri(sti, Texas 78401

Mr. Clyde WarrenRegion XV Education Service CenterP.O. Box S199Sari Angelo, Teps 76901

Mr. Everett YoungbloodRegion 10 Education Service Center;P.O. Box-2201, Sam Hot'ston StationHuntsville,, Texas 77341

Mr. Lowell BobergJordan School. District9361 South 400 EastSandy, Utah 84070

Mr. Joseph M. O'BrienBennington-Rutland Supervisory UnionManchester, Vermont 05254

Mr. Keith WrigthState Facilitator ProjectYakima Public Schools104 North 4th AvenueYakima, Washington 98902

A'

80

I

3

0

ESEA TITLE III PROJECT DIRECTORS -

forDEVELOPER/DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS

Dr. Marie Sinclair1100 21st Street, EastTuscaloosa, Alabama 35401

Ms. Sarah WaldropMobile County Public School SystemP.O. Box 1327,Mobile, Alabama 36601

Ms. Brenda JobeSan Jose State UniversitySchool of EducationSan Jose, California 95142

Dr. Nathan Farber150 N.E. 19th StreetMiami, Florida 33132

Ms. June JohnsonDirector, New Adventures in I'arningW.T. Moore Elementary SchoolTallahassee, Florida 32303

Ms. Marthe OwensP.O. Box 141Ocilla, Georgia 31774

Mr. Herbert H. Escott303 Pine StreetEssesville, Michigan 48732

Mr, Gerry HeindselmanBaugo Commudity SchoolR.R. #3, Box 425 AElkhart, In iana 46514

MS. Lucille WernerP2otone Unit District ,207U

Peotone, Illinois 60468

Ms. Nancy Hoepffnet1515 S..Salcedo StreetNew Orleans, Louisiana, 70125

Mr. Robert LentzHamilton-Wenham Regional HS755 Bay RoadHamilton, Massachusetts 01936

Dr. Roy ButzOakland Schools2100 Pontiac Lake RoadPontiac, Michigan 48054

Mb. Diane Bert18499 Beech DalyDetroit, Michigan 48240

Mr. Walter Norgrove143 Bostwick Avenue, N.E.Grand Rapids, Michigan 49502

Mr. R. J. RehwaldtAdministrative DirectorYouth DevelopmentRoseville Area School, ISD #6232939 Western Avenue, NorthRoseville, Minnesota 55113

Ms. Marion Wilson .

Ferguson-Florissant655 January AvenueFerguson, Missouri 63135

Dr. Robert H. OstdiekProject Dire7torPapillion-La Vista Public SchoolsDistriCt 27130 West 1st StreetPapillion, Nebraska 68046

81 85

Mr. Frank Thompson833 Fox Meadow RoadYorktown Heights, New York10598

Ms. Barbara Tucker180 Pine Street /Providence, Rhod( Island 02903

Mr. Robert SchrammCooperative Educational ServiceAgency No. 13908 West Main StreetWaupun, Wisconsin 53963

Mr. Wayne JenningsSt. Paul Open School1855 University AvenueSt. Paul, Minnesota 55104

Mr. Richard MetteerWayne Public Schools611 Wesil7th StreetWayne, Nebraska 68787

Mr. Matthew ScaffaN.Y.C. Board of EducationDistrict 31, Richmond221 Daniel Low Terrace, S.I.New York, New York 10301

Mr. John RqweLakewood B6ard of Education14 70 Warren Road

Lakewood, Ohio 44107

Dr. Gerald N. KingSIMU-SCHOOL Project DirectorDallas Independent School District3700 Ross AvenueDallas, Texas 75204

82

86

STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

NONPUBLIC EDUCATION LIAISON OFFICERS

AlabamaDr. B. D. BaxleyCoordinatorOffice of Technical AssistanceState Department of Education750 Washington, Room 200Montgomery, AL 36104(205) 269-7826

AlaskaMr. Kenneth GrjeserCoordinatorFederal Programs

-----State Department of Education---Alaska Office BuildingJuneau, AK 99801(907) 586-5255

ArizonaDr. Peary Jo LivikDeputy SuperintendentState Department of EducationState Capitol, Room 165Phoenix, AZ 85007(602) 271-5075

ArkansasMr. Eugfne F. ChannellSupervisor of Special ServicesState Department of EducationArch Ford Education BuildingLittle Rock, AR 72201(501) 371-1801

CaliforniaMr. Newton ChaseConsultant in Private School

EducationState Department of Education721 Capitol Mall.

Sacramento, CA 95814(916) 322-2838

Appendix

ColoradoDr. Edwin SteinbrecherAssistant CommissionerState Department of EducationState Office Building201 East ColfaxDenver, CO 80203(303) 892-9911

ConnecticutMr. John HarringtonState Board of EducationP.O. Box 2219

'Hartford, CT 06115(203) 566-5061

I

District ' ColumbiaMr. Latinee GullatteeDirectorStaff DevelopmentPublic School of the District of ColumbiaPresidential Building, Room 611Washington, DC 20004(202) 629-2550

FloridaDr. Marshall Fr inksAssociate CommissionerPlanning CoordinationState Department of EducationTallahassee, FL 32304(904) 48B-6303

GeorgiaDr. Joe EdwardsAssistant State SuperintendentOffice of the State Superintendent of SchoolsState Office BuildingAtlanta, GA 30334(404) 656-2598

83

HawaiiMr. Albert FeirerAdministratorSpecial ProjectsInstructional ServicesState Department of EducationHonolulu, HA 96804(808) 531-5758

Idaho

Dr. Toy E. TrubyAdministrator AssistantState Department of EducationL.B. Gordan Office BuildingBoise, ID 83720(208) 384-3225

IllinoisMr. Michael StramagliaAssociate Superintendent ofAcademic Affairs

Division Pupil and Prof. ServicesState Department of EducationSpringfield, IL 62706(217) 782-5238

IndianaMr. Raymond SlabyAssociate SuperintendentState Department of EducationIndianapolis, IN 46204(317) 633-6610

Iowa

Dr. Robert BentonState SuperintendentDepartment of Public InstructionGrimes State Office BuildingDes Moines, IA 50319(515) 281-5294

Kansas

Dr. C. Taylor WhittierCommissioner of EducationState Department of EducationTopeka. KS 66612

(913) 296-3201

KentuckyDr. Frank VittetowAssistant SuperintendentState/Fedcral RelationsState Department of EducationCapitol Plaza TowersFrankfort, KY 40601(502) 564-3936

LouisianaMrs. Anne StewartCoordinatorDivision of Special Educational ServicesState Department of EducationBox 44064Baton Rouge, LA 70804

(504) 389-2591

MaineMr. Beverly TrenholmState Department of Education and CulturalServices

Augusta, Maine 04330(207) 289-2321

Ma landDiT-AdaPhus L. SpainCoordinatorNonpublic Elementary and Secondary SchoolsState Department of EducationBox 8717Baltimore, MD 21240(301) 796-8300

MassachusettsDr. David CroninAssistant CommissionerState Department of Education182 Tremont StreetBoston, MA 02111(617) 727-5700

MichiganMr. Roger BolineDirectorSchool Management ServicesState Department of Education116' Washington StfeetLansing, MI 48902(517) 373-3342

84

8S,

MinnesotaMr. Sigurd OdeAssistant to the CommissionerState 'Department of Education

Capitol Square, 550 Cedar StreetSt. Paul, MN 55101

(612) 296-2774

MississippiMt. A.C. BilboAssistant CoordinatorTitle I, ESEAState Department of EducatibnP.O. Box 771Jackson, MS 39205(601) 354 -b944

MissouriDr. ArfEur MalloryCommissioner of EducationState Department of EducationP.O. Box 480Jefferson City, MO 65101(314) 'Si -4212

NebraskaMt. Glen ShaferConsultantPrivate and Nonpublic SchoolsState Department of Education233 South 10th StreetLincoln, NB 68508(402) 471-2445

NevadaMr. Merlin AndersonDirectorProfessional Standards BranchState Department of EducationCarson City, NV 98701(702) 882-7324

New HampshireNh.ffiarles MarstonAssistant ChiefDivision of Instruction.Mate Department of Educaton64 N. Main StreetConcord, NH 03301(603) 271-3235

5

Mtw JerseyMr. Walter McCarthyDirectorCurriculum Services to Private SchoolsState Department of Education224 West State StreetBox 609Trenton, NJ 08625(609) 292-8360

New MexicoMr. Ernest A. VigilDirectorNonpublic SchoolsState Department of EducationSanta Fe, NM 87501

(505) 827-5351

New YorkDr. Thomas W. HeathCoordinatorOffice of HealthPupil and Nonpublic School ServicesState Department of EducationAlbany, NY 12224(518) 474-3884

North CarolinaM. Calvin CrinerCoordinatorNonpublic SchoolsState Department of Education InstructionRaleigh, NC 27602(919) 829-4278

North DakotaMr. Vernon EberlyDeputy SuperintendentState Department of Public InstructionBismarck, Ni 58501

(701) 224 -226+

OhioMr. Ray HornDirectorDivision of Federal AssistanceState_ Department of EducationColuMbus, OH ,43214(614) 466-4161

OklahomaMr. Earl CrossAssistant SuperintendentState/Federal RelationsState Department of EducationOklahoma City, OK 73105(405) 478-0988

85 89

OregonMr. Ray OsburnCoordinatorDistrict College andCommunity Relations

State Department of Education942 Lancaster Drive, N.E.Salem, OR 97310

(503)378-3602

PennsylvaniaMr. Vincent McCoola

. DirectorOffice for Aid to Nonpublic

EducationState 'Department of EducationBox 911Harrisburg, PA 17126(717) 787-7100

Rhode Island /

Dr. M. Rosalia FlahertyConsultant for NonpublicSchools

State Department of Education199 Promenade StreetProvidence, RI 02908(401) 277-2031

South CarolinaDr. Donald PearceCoordinator of Federal FundingState Department of EducationRutledge BuildingColumbia, SC 36219(803) 758-1421

South DakotaMr. Norris PaulsonAssistant SuperintendentFederal ProgramsState DepartmentriPublic

InstructionSlate Cf,dtol BuildingPierre, SD 57501(605) '74-3367

k

I

86

90

TennesseeDr. J. Maurice RobertsDirectorInteragency RelationsState Department of EducationRoom 140--Cordell Hull BuildingNashville, TN 37219(614) 741-3544

TexasMr. Alton BowenDeputy Commissioner for Administrative

ServicesState Department of Education201 East Eleventh StreetAustin, TX 78701(713) 475-4536

UtahMr. Elvin OssmenSpecialist Statistical AnalysisState Board of Education136 E. South Temple1300 University Club BuildingSalt Lake, UT 84111(801) 328-5866

VermontMr. Leon H. BrunoDirector, Federal ProgramsState Department of EducationMontpelier, VT 05602

(802) 223-8610, ext. M35

VirginiaDr. Robert TurnerSpecial AssistantFederal Program and RelationsState Department of EducationRichmond, VA 23216(804) 770-3170

Washington ;

Mr.. Carl FynboeAdministratorNonpublic EducationSuperintendent of Public InstructionOld Capitol BuildingOlympia, WA 98504(206) 753-6773

West VirginiaMr. Gene MaguranDirectorFederal ProgramsState Department of Education1900 Washington Street, EastCharleston, WVA 25305(304) 348-3085

WyomdnAir. Paul Sandifer

Assistant SuperintendentDivision of Planning and DevelopmentState Department of EducationCapitol BuildingCheyenne, WY 82001(307) 777-7621

WisconsinMr. Donald DimockAssistant State 'perintendentDivision for Fields ServicesState Department of Public Instruction126 Landon StreetMadison, WI 53702(608) 266-2801

87

91

(

CAPE TYPE REGIONAL AND STATE ORGANIZATIONS

Arizona - CAPECharles H. Orme, Jr., President'The Orme SchoolMayer, Arona 86333

California Executive Council of NonpublicSchool Representatives

Mr. Walter h. dartkopf, President465 Woolsey StreetSan irancisco, California 94234

Florida Association of AcademicNonpublic Schools

Mr. Charles O'MalleyCoordinator of EducationFlorida Catholic ConferenceP. 0. oox 1571Tallanassee. Florida 32302

Illinois Association of Nonpoalic SchoolsMr. Alvin Vanden Bosch, President2261 Indiana AvenutLansing, Illinois 60438

Indiana Nonpublic Educators AssociationMr. Alvin Vandel Bosch, Presi ent2261 Indiana AvenueLansing, Iltinois 60438

Iowa Association of Nonpublic Schools'Mr. Lewis Arkema604 Third Street, S.W.Orange City, Iowa 51041

Kansas Associat,ion of Nonpublic SchoolsCol. Keith G. DuckersSt. John's Military SchoolSalina, Kansas 57401

Michigan Association of Nonpublic SchoolsDr. Ivan E. Zylstra865 28th Street, S.E.Grand Rapids, Michigan 49508

Appendix

Missouri Association for Nonpublic SchoolsMr. F. RandalP. O. Box 651Jefferson City, Missouri 65101

N Y. State Conference for NonpublicEducation

Mr. J. Alan DavittRoom 311, 11 North Pearl StreetAlbany, New York 12207

Oregon Federation cf Independent, SchoolsDr. Eugene Fadel, HeadmasterSalem Academy250 College Drive, N.W.Salem, Oregon 97304

Texas Association of Nonpublic SchoolsMr. Keith A. Loomarw. President8100 U.S. 290 EastAustin, Teas 78724

The Virginia Council for Private EducationMr. John H. Tucker, Jr.North Cross School4254 Colonial Avenue, S.W.Roanoke, Virginia 24018.

Washington Federation of independent SchoolsMr. Roger Van DykenP.O. Box 444Lynden, Washington 98264

Wisconsin Association of Nonpublic SchoolsRev. Mark Schomer, PresidentP.O. Box 186Green Bay, Wisconsin 54305

988

92

Appendix

CONTACTS IN USOE REGIONAL OFFICES

"It is to the Regional Offices that local school officials may look forguidance if they have questions concerning programs which mandate theeligibility of nonpublic school children for equitable benefits," Com-missioner Bell said in a briefing memo.

)

The contact p rsons in the regional offices along with the states theyserve, are as follows:

Region I (Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island,Vermont). Office: John F. Kennedy Federal Building, Government Center,Boston, Mass. 02203. Regional Liaison Officer: Dr. Fred Wilkinson.Telephone: 617/223-6891.

Region II (New York, New Jersey, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands). Office:Federal Building, 26 Federal Plaza, New York, N.Y. 10027. Regional LiaisonOfficer: Dr. Charles O'Connor, Jr. Telephone: 212/264-4054.

C` JiArZion III (Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia,District of Columbia). Office: 3535 Market Street, Philadelphia, Penna.19101. Regional Liaison Officer: Mr. Kenneth Frye. Telephone: 215/597-9248.

Region IV (Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North 'Cat-0111a,South Carolina, Tennessee). Office: 50 Seventh Street, NW, Atlanta, Georgia30323. Regional Liaison Officer: Me William Pergande. Telephone:404/526-5996.

Region V (Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, WiscOnsin, Chicago).,Office: SOO S. Wacker Drive, Chicago;-Ill.60606. Regional Liaison Officer:Mr. Paul Derwinski. Telephone: 312/353-1245.

Region VI (Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas). Office: 1114Commerce Street, Dallas, Texas 75202. Regional Liaison Officer; Mr. EarlShubert. Telephone: 214/749-2634.

Re&ionVII (Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, N raska). Office: 601 E. 12th Street,Kansas City, Mo. 64106. Regional Liais n Officer: Dr. Harold Blackburn.Telephone: 861/374-2276.

Region VIII (Colorado, Montana, No'ith Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, Wyoming)Office: 1961 Stout 'Street, Denver, Colo. 80202. Regional Liaison Officer:Dr. Ed. Larsh. Telephone: 303/837-3676.

Region IX (Arizona, Califor a, Hawaii, Nevada, Guam, Trust Territory ofPacific Island, American E. a). Office: Federal Office-Building, 50Fulton Street, San Francis. Calif. 94102. Regional LiaisoR Officer:Mr. William Peterson. Telephone: 415/556-2874.

Red ion (Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, Washington). Office: Arcade Plaza, 1321Second Avenue, Seattle, Wash. 98101. Regional Liaison Officer: Dr. JohnBean. telephone: 206 /442 -0434.

. 9389

Appendix

BIBLIOGRAPHY

tr

For more information on the nonpublic schools, see the following references:

Statistics of Nonpublic Elementary and Secondary Schools, 1970-71.National Center of Educational Statistics, U.S. Dept. of Health,Education and Welfare. Washington; D.C. 20402: Supt. of Docu-ments, U.S. Government Printing Office; 1973; 90 pp; $3.20;Stock do. 1780-01249.

Nonpublic Schools in Large CitiesEducational Statistics, U.S. DeptWelfare. Washington, D.C. 20402:Government Printing Office; 1974;74-11425.

1970-71. National Center for. of Health, Education andSupt. of Documents, U.S.40 pp; 85c; Stock No. (OE)

U.S. Catholic Schools, 1973-74. National Catholic EducationalAssociation. Washington, D.C. 20036: Publication Sales, NationalCatholic Educational Association, One Dupont Circle, Suite 350,1974; 92 pp; $2.60 prepaid (1-9 copies).

American Nonpublic Schools: Patterns of Diversity. Otto F. Kraushaar.Baltimore, Maryland 21218: The John Hopkins University Press;1972; 387 pp; $12.

Alight (Quarterly newsletter). Board of Parish Education, LutheranChurch-Missouri Synod, 3558 S. Jefferson Avenue, St. Louis, Missouri63118; $1 annual subscription.

Lutheran Education (published five times annually). ConcordiaPublishing House, 3558 S. Jefferson Avenue, St. Louis, Missouri63118; $5 annual subscription.

Lutheran Secondary Schools Quarterly. Board 94'Parish.EdLication,Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, 3558 Jefferson Avenue, St. Louis,Missouri 63'118; $4 annual subscription for non-Lutheran schools.

The Independent School Bulletin (quarterly publication). NationalAssociation of Independent Schools, Four Liberty Square, Boston, Mass.02109; $7 annual subscription.

NAIS Report (ckarterly publication). National Association ofIndependent Schools, Four Liberty Square, Boston, Mass. 02109;$5 annual subscription.

Momentum (quarterly publication). National Catholic-EducationalAssociation, Publications Sales Office, Suite 350, One DupontCircle; Washington, D.C. 20036; $8 annual subscription.

90

94

Christian Educators Journal (quarterly publication of the NationalUnion. of Christian Schools). Business Manaw.,,-434 Kimball Avenue,S.E., Grand Rapids, Michigan 49508; $4 annu 1 Subscription.

Christian Home and School (published four t mes a year). NationalUnion of Christian Schools, 865 28th Street,'1, S.E., Grand Rapids,Michigan 40508; $3.25 annual subscription.

The Jewish Parent (quarterly publication). National Society forHebr&./ Day Schools, 229 Park Avenue, S., New York, New York 10003;$2 annual subscription.

\

1

91

95

This is one portion of a survey form sent to Title III Project Directors inthe State of California to gauge the amount Of involvement by nonpublic schoolstudents'andteachers. Selected results from the survey are included in thechapter, "A Profile of California.' For more information, contact Dr. RobertD. Welty, General Education Management, OSEA Title III, 721 CapitolSacramento, California 95814.

Project Title

D;Zector

District

STATUS SURVEY OF NON-PUBLIC SCHOOL INVOLVEMENT

No.

Phone

Within the attendance boundaries of your project salon (s), are there any non - public schools?

/ YES / NO

If YES, name the non-public school() up to five schools:

/ / /

.CHECK HERE IF THERE ARE/ --/ / / / / OVER FIVE

1. Check (/177/ Holy Name) clearly those non-public school(a) which have students directly*involved in the project,* - Directly means involvement of staff and student, face-to-face, on a regular schedule

to produce Learning.

A.

3.

4:

Place an /1.17./ by those schools having indirect** involvement.** - Indirect means involved on an intermittent schedule in [hind such,as

sons, field trips, etc.

How many students are directly involved?

.

How many days a week. are they involved? CIRCLE: 1 2 3 4 5

special les-

5. How many students are indirectly involved?

6. Are non-public school teachers involved in pre or inservice training? / /YES /NO

7. If YES, hOw many are (have been) involved'

8. How many in 7, above, were involved in summer or early fall preservice?..

9. What is the average amount (hours) of preservice for each non-publicteacher included in 8, above? hrs.

10. If 6'is YES, how many teachers are to be involved in ongoing inservice?

11. What will be the average amount (hours) of inservice for etch non-publicteacher included in 10, above'

12. Do non-public schools use project / /materials, / /equipment?

Check if YES for materials and/or equipment, above.

92

9f;

f.

, '

. This is a copy of the form on "Nonpublic School Participation" to be/-.

t .cmpleted i.)), the applicant for a Title III project in California. I.

'.This pSve molt be coilipleted by the applicant'and ulbsequently reviewed and;signedby nonpublic school persoflnel in authority, such as'an equivalent to'a superinten-dent, consultant, or principal. 'The page should beincluded, even if there Ae tohe no nonpublic students involved,

li

/

. , O.

14. .

For purposes of fieterminIng which nonpublic students are eligible to "le.iriVIalved! ,

.

two criteria arg applied and when these are met, nonpublic ,st=udents shbuld be in-.eluded: ' - . t -

=

These criteria are is follows:1

1. Nonpublic school students rie in the attendance atea of projectschoe'ls and have needs similar t the target group.

2. Nonpublic -schoolstudent: .rho are outside of thq attendance areas of. tTpiect ,but.akegeograp'aically lucated so as to be reasonably

conwniont and al,so haVe.needs similar to the target grIbUp.

1.

A

A. Lot below the schools which enroll students who me C the above criteria:.A

. *) .I V

1 1 . . II a:,Check T,71 Schools

No of . to be Involved ,inSchool Name of Sdhool * Addrgs , Project Activities

.g.

1.

2

3

4

5'

(ADD FACES'71, NWER OF suous EXCEEDS FIVE).

( .

B. Enrollment by glade leyel of schools which-"are checed in Column IV above:. .

.

Schoolof / , /

.]).

S ol f

/

/ / / / /__ / V / / / / / /`/ / / / / / / / 1 / / / /

t --1 \4/// // /4 / / / / / / / / / / / /./ / / / / / / /

7/ /---'\/ / / / / ir-/. / /. / / P / 1..f.1 .1 I / '7 /_/ IK 1 2 .3 4 5 6 7 8 , 9 10 11

(USE /.L'DITIONAL PAGES IF NECESSARY).. ,

, Applicants are to noolfy qualified nonpublic sclrol-personnel, by letter, that aTitle III projeczyls bang written and invite the: to therfirst planning meeting.copies. of cocreqsondece can be includgd in the application, but are not to to con-sidered as a substiL.pre Cor signatures on page 2 of this document.

dO t

C. If Colon; IV in not checked above, indicate what factors limit nonpublic school in-yolvepent: .

-0I a

.

...,

91.

97

1 .4

D. As estimated by the nonpublic school personnel, provide the numbeeof students bygrade level, Jot the schools checked, who have deeds similar to the needs of the

public school target population:

440. ofSchool

// / 1 1 //// / / / / / / i / // // / /

/ / / / / / / / Pr/ / / / / / / / / /, / /

*IC" 1 2. 3- 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12

(USE"ADDITIONAL PAGES IF NECESSARY)

Briefly respond to the following: 6

How have nonpublic school personnel been involved in p -mtthe project? 4.

(, 11

How wfil the nonpublic school Orsopnel and-s tudents be invoivdd in the project?. " 1

L.

4

P;ovision for involveinent of children shall Inclutle (1) Paidwinvolvemeia of,staff in inservile, (2) Involvement in all types of instructional activities .,whicHSupplement.- the regular program, (3) The use oft.project materials andequipment. f

- Provision for,involement of childrin shall not ihclude (1) The payment of

t .salaries ofnonpubkic school eersonnel, except forservices performed outsideregulni hours of.auty, and under-public supervision, (2) Financing of Fhe existing level ofsinstruction, (3) The permanent placement of equipment or-buildingon private school premises. .

4.

'.

As verification4that-they have reviewed the-

protect application and this docu-ment,mcnt, secure the signatures of nonpublic school aamiuistratoKs whose studentsmeet tne selection criAcria. .

loteresttA_.

1in I ,

./ Participation - NONPUBLIC ADMINISTRATORS WHOSE SCHOOLS ARE LISTED IN ITEM A MUST SIGN BELOW:

0'CHECK Of )

. Schools ' 1

Signffure t Date /.. CommAnts'lES .N -

'

-

I

; '4

% 1

) o

--,

1,

a /14

98t.

0 '14

i

J.

1

PORTION OF TITLE IV RELATING TO S TION 401(a), (h) & (c)

LIBAIES, LEARNING RE ES, EPiUGATIONALINNOVATION, UPPORT

reads as follows:

a68 Stat.13 SEC. -401. Title IV of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act79 Stilt . of 1965, is amended to read as follows:20 USC 331.

"TITZE IVLIBRARIES,,LEARNING RESOURCES, EDI,JCA-k TIONAL INNOVATION, AND SUPPORT

"PART AGENERAL PROVISIONS

"AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS

.20 USC "Sac. 401. (a) (1) Subject to the provitiions of paragraph (2), there,is authorized%ts be appropriated the sum of 035,000,000 for obligationby the Comnnssioneifduring the fiscal year ending June 30, 1976, andsuch sums as may be necessary for obligation' by the Commissionerduring each of the two succeeding fuses] years, for the purpose It'fiak-ing, grants under part B (Libraries and Learning Resources) of thistitle.

"(2) No funds are authorized to be appropriated under this suit-s section for obligation by the Commissioner during any fiscal year=lea."(A) (i) aggregate amount which would be appropriated under

this subsection is at least equal to the aggregate amount appro-1 -priated for obligation by the Commissioner during the preceding

fiscal year in which part B was in t ffect, or"(II) in the case of appropriations undeni this subsection for .

the first .fiscal year in which part 14 is effective, such amovnt is atleast equal to the aggregate amount appropriated for obligationby the Commissioner for the fiscal year ending AJune 30, 1974, or .79 stet. 36.

20 USC 821. for the p'receding fiscal year, whichever is hi er, under title IIand so much of title III as relates to testing, guidance, and84 Stat. 130. , counseling of this Act, aAd under title III (except for section 305)20 USC 841.72 Stat. 1588. of the National Defense Education Act of 1958, and20 DSc 441. "(B) the sums appropriated pursuant to this subsection are

included in an Act making appropriations foirthePscal year priorto the fiscal year in which such sums will be obligated, and aremade available for expenditure prior to the beginning of suchfiscal year.

"(b) (1) Subject to the provisions of paragraph ,(2), there is author-ized to be appropriated the sum of $350,000,000 for obligation by theCommissioner during the fiscal year ending June 30, 1076, and suchsums as may be necessary for obligation by the Commissioner duringeach of the two 'succeeding fiscal years, for the pugiose of makinggrants under part C (Education 1 Innovation and Support) of thistitle.

"(2) No funds are authorized be Appropriated under, this sub-section for obligation by the Commissionec,during any fiscal yearunless

"(A) (i) the aggregate amount which would be-appropriatedunder this subsection is at least equal to the aggregate amountappropriated for obligation by thet_Comthissioner tinting the pre-ceding fiscal year in which part C was in effect, or

"(i1) in the case of appropriations under this subsection for thefirst fiscal year in which part C is effective, such amount is at leastequal to the aggregate amount appropriated for obligation by theCommissioner for fiscal year ending June 30, '1974, or for the pre-

01 95

. 99 I

4

84 Aut. 130.20 USC 841.

79 Stat. 47;81 Stat. 816;84 Stat. 153.20 USC 861,887, 888.

p. 543.

64 Stat. 130.20 US 841.

4. 74,1a 47;

61 Statlic.:1.6;

84 .tat. 3.20 "SC 854

087, 88.

Appropriation.

20 USC 1802.

ceding fiscal year, whichever isLigher, under title III (except forprograms of testing, guidance, and counseling), title V, and sec-

tions 807 and 808 of this Act, and"(B) the sums appropriated pursuant to this subsection are

included in an Act making appropriations Aar the fiscal year priorto the fiscal year in which such sums will be obligated, and aremade available for expenditure prior to the beginning of suchfiscal year.

"(c)(1), In the first fiscal year in which appropriations It madepursuant to part B, 50 per centum of the funds so appropriated shallbe available to the States to carryout part B of this title.The remain-

- der of such funds shall be available to the States and shall be allottedto the Ste t' or to the Commissioner, as the case may be, in suchyear, pursu nt to title H and so much of title III as relates to testing,guidance, an counseling under this Act, and under Ole ni (exceptfor section 305) of the National Defense Education Act of 1958, foreach such program in an amount which bears'the tame ratio to suchremaindOr as the account appropriated fe- each such program for thefiscal year ending 'June 30,1974, or for tiv fiscal year preceding thefiscal yea: for which the determination is Made, whichever is higher.bean; to the :n- : 'te of such appropriated amounts. The amountsmade 'availableinedrei the second sentence of thisaparagraph shall besubject to the provisions of law governing each such program. ,

"(2) In ,fhe first fiscal year in whickappropriatimCi are made- insr-suant to part. C, 50 per cent= of the funds so appropriated shall beavailable to carry out part C of this title. The remainder of such fundsshall be available to the States and shall be allotted to the States, orto the Commissioner, as the case may be, in such year, pursuant to titleIII (except for pfograms of testing, guidance, and counsel:ok), titleVt and sections 8014. and 808 of this Act, for each such program in anamount which bears tile same ratio to such remainder as the amount,appropriated for each.such program for tillitfiscai yea*ending June 30,1974, or for the fiscal year preceding the fiscal year for which the deter-mination is nunfc, tvhichever is higher, bears to the aggregate of suchappropriated amounts. The 'mount made available under the second'sentence of this.paragraph shall be subject to the provisions of lawgoverning each such program.

"Al.lArtatyNT To Tog sTaTT.13

"Sac. 402. (a) t 1) Their is hereby authorized to be appfopriattalfor eac i fiscal ear fig the purposes of this paragraph amounts equato not rm n I fief centimi of each of the amounts appropriated for

Ante, T. 535. such, After subsections (a) (b), or both; of section 401. The'issioner shall allot, each of the amounts appropriated pursuant

to 's paragraph among G lam. American Samoa, Ulf Virgin 'Islands,the Pacific Islands according to their

her part B or part ('or both, of thisseal Year heoliell allot from each of such

Post. PP.543.

"State.".

and- the Trust Territory o542, resilective deeds for assistaiu

title. In tuhfition for eachamounts to t .1 )the Secret ry of the Interior the amounts necessaryfor the programs authorized by each such part for children andteachers itrelementar and secondary schools operated for Indian chil-dren by Ai Depiertment of the Interior, and (B) the Secretary ofDefense the *mom' i necessary for thief programs authorized by eachsuch pan for chilli] n and teachers in the overseas dependents schoolsof theDepartmeot f Defense. 111: terms upon which payment forsuch purposes shall be niade to the Secretary of the Interior and theSecretary of DeMnse shall be determined pursuant to such criteria asthe Commissioner determines will best carry o& the purpolik of thistitle. e

"(2) From the *aliments approp?iated to carry out part B or part C.or both. of this title fur any fiscal year pursuant to subsections (a) and(b) of section 401. the Commissioner shall allot tovich State fromeaclAnch amount an a mount' wh ich bears the same ratio to such amountas the number of children aged five to seventeen: inclusive, in tile Statebears to the number of ouch chiltiren in all the States. For the purportsof' this subsection. the term 'State' shall not include Guam, Americas

IJe

.41

e

I

a

I

S.

4/

a.

Rea 11Am, nt.

I.

4

v.

Lisps; p. 535.*

Samoa, the Virgin Islands, and the Trust Territory of the PacificIslands:The imnibr of children aged,five to seventeen. inclosire. 'n aState and in 111 the States shall** determined by the Commissioner onthe basis of the most recent satisfactory data available to him.

"(b) The amount of any State's allotment 'under subsection (a) forany fiscal year to carry out part B or C which the Comnlissioner deter-

. mines sill norbe required for speh fiscal year to carry out such part.shall be available for seallotment from time to time, on such dates dur-ing such year as the Commissioner may fix, to other States in prOpor-tion to the original alldtments to such 'States ubsection (a) forthat year but with such proportionate amount for any of such otherStates being reduced to the extent ' exceeds-the sum the Commissionerestimates such State.needs and will be able to use for 'such year, and thefoiel pftsuch reductions shall be similarly reallotted amoy the States%%hose' proptirtionate aurnints were not so reduced. atnounts real-lotted to a State under...this subsection duringa year from funds appro-priated pursuant to section 401 shall be deemed a part of its allotmenttinder subsection (a) for such year.

f"s

"STATE PLANS

Advisory coon:111.EstatlisIsnent.20-135C

V

Ar11.p. 637,

post, p. 542,543.

Post. p; 541,

. 79 Stat. 1219.?0 USC

P. 542.

"Site. 403 (a) Ly State which desires to receive grants underthistitle shall establish an advisory council its provided by subsection (b)and shIP subrmiit to the Commissioner a'Sts# plan, in suchdetail .asthe t'olninissioner deems neceary, which

"(1$ designates the State educational agency as the Stateagency which shall, either directly or through arriegements withother S The or local public agencies, act as the sole agency,for theadminis tion of the State plan;

"(2, forth a program under which fends paid to the Statefrom its a ments under section 402 Will be expended solely forthe programs and liurposes authorized by parts B and C of this

l, and for administration otthe State plan;.'(3) provides ass9rances that the requireritents-oof section

406 (relating tothe participation of piipils and teachers in non-public elementary and secondary schools) will be met, or certifiesthat such requirements cannot legally be pietin such State;- "(4)- provides assurances tns.t -(A) funds such agency receiVfrom ipptopriations is,de *der section 401(a) will distrib-uted ammig local educational agencies aecoeding to t e enroll-ments in public and nonpublic schools within the ach districtsof such agencies, except that substantial funds will be povidedto (i) local educational agencies w x effort for educatioA)is substantially Ovate!. than the Ste e average tax effort for u-cdion, but wbose per pupil expenditure (excluding pay ents

'made under title I of this Act) is no greater than the aye perpepil expenditure in the State, end (11) local edutational ligetagieswhich have the greatest numbers or percentages children *hoseeducation imposes a higher than average cost 'child, such aschildren from low-income families, children iv g in spa...hely`populated areas, and children f 'families in w ill English is

from appropriations mace under section .401 (b) will be didrili-uted among local educationansgencies on an equitable is rec-ognizing the competitive nature of the grantmaking ex pt that .

the State educational agency shall :provide assistance i forum- v,lating proposals and in operating programs to local educational' wagencies which are less able ti qiimpete due to small size or lack .1of local financial resources; and The State plan shall set forth the P.specific criteria the State educational agency has developed andwill apply to meat the requirements of this paragraph;

"(5) provides that.each local educational agency will be givencpmplete discretion (subject to the provisions of sectios 406) indetermining how the fufk it receives from appropriations madeunder section 401(s) will be divided among the various programsdescribed, i'n section 421, except that, in the first year in whichavpropliat ions ale made pursuant to part B, each local educationalafeacy will be given. complete discretion with resreic* 50 percentum of the funds appropriated for that pact attriButable tothat local educational'agency; . .

*. .

..,.... 4. i .

)

not the dominant langua ; and ) funds su gency receives

9T

1.01

5,

.S

1

SK"

51

A

A

ire Programevaluation.

' "(6) prOvides for the adoption of effective procedures (A) fqran evaluation by the State advisory council, akleast annually, ofthe effectiveness of the prognips and _projects assisted under,theState plan, (B) for the appropriate dissemination of the results

'ot such evaluapons and other infotmation .pertaining to such pro-grams or project?, and (C) for the adoption, where appropriate,of promising) educational practices developed through innovative

post. p. 543. programs supported under part Cl" ) provides thatoiscal educational agencies applying for

fun under any program under this title shall be required tosubmit only one-application for such funds for any one fiscalyear. ,P

f

..

4

r

" (8),,providesitt,sr I). 535. "j A) that, of the, funds the State receives under section 401

forilte first tiara] year for which suchlunds are available,uch agency will" use for administration of the state plan

to exceed whichever is greater (i) 5 peecentum of theam lit so received ($50,000 in the case of Gdam, American

, Sa a, the Virgin Islands, and the Trust Territory of .thePacific Islands), excluding yny part of such amount used for

Post, p.. 543. purees d! section 431(a) (3), or (ii) the amount it'recei'vedfor the fiscal year ending June 30,1973, for administration of

Post,. R. 542 the programs referred to in sections 421(b) and 431(b), andthe remainder of such funds.shall made available to

local educational agencies to be turd for Abe purposes of partsB and C, respectively; and thit, of Elbe funk the Statereceives under section 401 for fiscal years theer, it willurge for adMinistration of theState plan not to exceed which- .ever is greater (i) 5 per centum of the amount so received($50,000 in the case of Guam, American Samoa, the VirginIslands, and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands),

IP excluding any part of such amount used for purposes of sec-tion 431(a) (3), or (ii) $225,000, and that the remainder ofsuch funds shall be made available to local educational agen-cies to be used foe' purposes of parts B and d; respectively,

I "(B) that not less than 15 per centum of the amountreceived pursuant to section 401(b) -in any fiscal year (not iv.-eluding any imount used for pqrposes of section 481(a) ($) )shall be used for special programs or projects for. the educa-tion of'childrezf with specific learning disabilities and handi-capped children, and

"(C) that not more than the greater of (i) 15 per centum4' of the amount winch such State receives pursuant to section

401.(b) in any fiscal year, or (ii) the amount available byappropriation to such Stite in the fiscal year ending June30, 1973, for purposes covered by section 431(a) (3), shallbe used for purposes or section 431(a) (3) (relating to.'strengthening State and local educational agencies)

Faciljties,"(9) provides assumnqps that in the case of ifity project for the

accessibility ,repair, remodeling,,or Ar*.ructien of facilities, that the facili-to hiadir. ties shall be accessible to and usable by handicapped 'persons;capped persons. "(10) sets forth policies and procedures wtich give satisfactory

assurance that Federal funds made available under this title forany fiscal year will not be commjngled with State fun362 and

'1(11) gives sktisfactou assurance that the aggregate a ountto be expended by the State and its local educational agencies .

. from fundh , derived from Ion-Federal sources for programsfart, p. 542. deecri in section 421(a) far a fiscal year Vitt not be less than

Lhe am unt so expended for thepreceding hscai yrear."(B) (1 The State advisory council, established pursuant to sub -

section (a ,s all"(A-) be appointed by the State educational agency oi as other-

wise provided by Statq law and be broadly representative of thecultural and educational resinirces o the State ( efined in

Eva, p. 544. section 432) anal of the public, incl ing personsof 'presentative

"(1) public and private elementary and second* 'schools."(ii) institutions of higher education, and"((iii) fields of professional ,competence in dealing with

children needing special education because of physical or

fogN.

(

s

4

I

4e.

1

(

Jut ie s

, Report toComrissioner.

A

Med,. tlgS

Personnel.

State planapproval.

Hearin.;notIt.

1804.

20 LISC 1E105,40Atp e; .537.Fort per542,

20 i'sb 1806.

mental handicaps, specific learning disabilities, severe educe-tional disadvantage, and limited English-speaking ability orbecause they are gifted col talented, and of professional com-petence in guidance and counseling;

"(Ii) advise the State educational agency on the preparationand policy matters arisingin the ..dministretion oZ, the State

plan, includyyrrl1g development, of criteria for the distributionof funds on the approval of applications for assistance ander thistitle;

"CC) evaldate all programs and projects assisted under thistitle; and '

"(I)) prepare at least annually And submit thritiglo the Stateeducational agency a report of its activities, recommendations, andevaluations, together with such additional comments as the Stateeducational, _agencyAleems appropr to the Commissioner.

"(2) Not less than nil days prio the beginning of any fiscalyear for which funds will be available r carrying out this title, eachState shall certify theestablishment o , and membership of (includ-ing the...name of the person designated as Chairman.), its Stateadvisorycouncil tv the Commuitoner. ,

Each State advisory 'council shall meet within thirty daysafter certification has been accepted by the Commissioner and estab-lish the time, pace, and manner of its future meetings, except thatsuch council shalt have not less than one public ting each year atwhichgthpublic is given an opOortunity to ex views concerningthe affministration and operation of this tit e.

"(f) Each State advisory council shall be ,authorized to obtainthe services.of such professional, technical, and clerical personnel.and to contract for such other services as may IT necessary to enablgthem to c'arry out their functions,under this title, and the Commis-sioner shall assure that funds sufficient for these purposes are madeavailable to each council from funds avajlalile for administration ofthe State plan.

"(c) The Commissitper shall approveany State plan and illy modi- ,fication thereof which complies with ovisihns of sillwetionq (a)and (b) of this section.

"ADHINISXRAfION. OF STATE. PIANs

"Sec. 404.`The C,omthissioner shall not filially diplan submitted under this title, or any modificatiofirst affordifig the State educational agency reaopporttnity for a hearing.

"PAT1LENTS TO STATES

21)prove any Statethereof, without

noble notice and

"Sec. 405. From the amounts allotted to each State under section10 or carrying 'out the programs authorize$ by parts 13 and C,respectively, the Commipsioner shall pay to that State an amountequal to thetamount espended by the State in carrying out its Stateplan (after withholding any amount necessary pursuant to section406(f)).

"PARTICII.ATION OF CHILDREN ENROLLED IN PRIVATE SCHOOLS

"Sac. 406. (a) To the extent consistent with the nomber of childrenin the school district of a local educational agency ( which is a recipientof funds under this title or which serves the area in which a programor project,assisted under this title is located-) who are enrolled in pri-vate nonprofit elementary and secondary schools, such agency, afterconsultation with the appropriate private school officials, shall providefor the benefit of such children in such schools secular, neutral, andnonideological services, materials, and equipment including the repair.ininourmodelifig, or construction of public school facilities as may beneceWry for their provision (consistent with subsection (c) of thissection), or, if such services, materials, and equipment are not feasibleor necessary in one or more such private schools as determined hy,thelocal educational agency after Consultation with the appropriate pri-vate school officials, shall provide such other arrangeinents as willassure equitable _participation of such children in the purposes and

.benefits of AShis title.

4.

tot

.1

4

.

r

4

Yoe

1

4

w

Equal 'ex.penditures.

Aden nu stra-ti on.

7

Waiver.

Petition forreview.

Transmittalcopy to Com-

missioner.

72 Stat. 941;80 Stat. 1323.Fact findingsmodification.

Surislict

62 Stat." 928.

As

"(b) Expenditures for yrograms pursuant to subsection (a) shallbee equal (consistent width the number of children to be served) toexpenditures for prograMs for children enrolled in the public schools

of the. local educational agenity. taking into account the needs of theindivitital children and other factors (pursuant to criteria suppliedby the Commissioner) which relate to such expenditures;. end when

. funds available to -a local educational agency under this titld are used

to concentrate programs or projects on a particular group, attendancearea, or grade Tu. age level, children enrolled in private schools whoare included within the group, attend-nee areas, or grade or age levelselected fovich concentration shall. atter consultation with the appro-priate private school officials, be assured equitable participation in thepurposes and benefits of such programs or projects.

"(c) (1) The controlof Ponds provided under this, tith and title tomat infs. equipment, and property repaired, re;:fodeled, or con-st ted therewith shall be in a public agency for the uses and pur-poses pro% ided inthis title. and a public agency shall administer suchholds Hod property.

",(2) The provision of ser% ices pursuant to this section shall be pm,idhl by employees of a public agency or through contract by such

public agency with a person, an association, agency. or corporationwho or %% Lich in the pro% ision of -such. services is independent of suchprivate school and of any religious organisation. and such employ-ment or contract shall be under the control and supervision .of suchpublic agency, and the finials provided under this title shall not,hecommingled with State or local funds.

"(d) If a State is prohibited by law from providing for the partici-pation in programs. of children enrolled in private elementary andsecondary schools, as required by this secticn, the Commissioner maywaive such requity t and shall arrange for the provision of serv-ices to such chil ren th ugh arrangements which shall be subject tothe requiremen -of this tion.

"(e) If the m_ inissi er determines that a State or a local edu-'cational agency s tautially failedlto provite for the_participa-

tion on an equitable basilliaf children enrolled in private elementaryand secondary schools as required by this section, he shall arrange fqgthe provision of services to such children through arrangements whicW

shall be subject to the requirements of this section."(f) When the Commissioner arranges forservices pursuant to this

section, he shall, after consultation with the appropriate public andprivate school officials, pay the cost of such services from the appro-priate allotment of the State under this title.

"(g) (1) The Commissioner shall not take any final action underthis section until he has afforded the State educational agency and.local educational agency affected by such action atleast, Katy daysnotice of his proposed action and an opportunity for a hearing withrespect thereto on the record

"(2) If a State or local tliicational agency is dissatisfied with theCommissioner's final action after a hearing under subparagraph (A)of this paragraph, it may within sixty days after notice of suchaction. file with the °United States court of appeals for thecircuit inwhich such State is located a petition for review of that action. A copyof the petition shall'.be forthwith transmitted by the clerk of thecourt to the Commissioner. The Commissioner thereupon-shall file in

'the court the record of the proceedings on which he based his ahtion,provider l in section 2112 of title 28, United States Code. -"CO 'l'ii findings of factby the Commissioner If supported by

substantial evidence, shall be conclusive; but the court, for good cause-Alqwil. may remand the cape to the Commissioner to hake krther evi-defice. and the Commissioner may thereupon make hew or modified

afindings of fact and my modify his previous action.'and shall file in

the court the record of the further proceedings. Suchliew or modifiedfindings of fact Atoll likewise be conclusive if supported by substantial

evidence.'(4) Upon the filing of such petition. the court shall have juris-,

diction to affirm the action of the Commitslioner or to set it aside, inwhole or in part. The judgment oftholiourt shall be subject to re% newby the Supreme Court of the t7nijed States upon certiorari or certifica-tion as provided iu ketio4 125444 title 28, United States COL".

:

k 100

4 104'

a

,

IMO

9

r

a

/

S.

Grants to. States.

20 ITSC 1821.

-1) %RI' ..lIt ARILS AND I.V.ARN I NG RF.SOURCES

. J-

-SEt . 421. (it) Tik. Commissiuner shall carry out a program formaking grants to the States (pursuant to State plans approved understet ton 403) i ,. ,

- (I ) lfor the acquisition of school librav resources. textbooks,and ot er printed and published instru,:tional materials for theuse of children ateLteachers in public and private elementary andsecondary schools; . .

"(2) for the ace uisituin of instructional equipment t ineludinglaboratory and other special equipment, including audio-visualnuiterials and equipment suitable foe use' in psoviding education inacaderhie subjects) for use by children and.tetu.ihers m elemeptarysod secondary schools, and for minor remodeling 9f laboratory orother space usedby such schools for such equipment ; and

"(3) fol. (A) a program of testing students in the elem tart'. - and secondary schools, ( By programs of counseling and guic eservices for students at the appropriate levels in elementarjCansecondary schools designed (i) to athise students of courses of "Nstudy best suited to their ability, aptitude, and skills, (ii) to advisestudents with respect to the lecisions as to the type of educationalprogrim they should pur the vocation they should train forand enter, and the job opportunities in the various fields, and(iii) to encourage students to complete their secondary schoolseducation, take the necessary courses for admission to postsec-ondary- institutions suitable for their occupational or academicneeds, and enter such institutions, anclaurh pc ugrauts may IncludeOunt-term sessions for persons engaged in guidance and counsel-,,ing in elementary and secondary school, and (C) pro rams,projects, and padership- activinks designed to expan andstrengthen counseling ?lid guidance- services in element's

(rand/ secondary schools. ,

."(b) It is the purpose of this part to combine within a single79 Stat. 36, authorization, subject to the modifiCations imposed b5 the provisionsm USC 821. and requirements of this title, the programs authorized,by title II and84 Stat. 130. so much of title IX' as relates to esting, counseling, and guidance, sit.20 USC 841. this Act, and title III (except for ction 305 thereof) of the gat tonal -72 Stet. 1588.. Defense Education Act of 1958, a id funds appropriated to carry out ,20 USC 441. ,this part taist be used only for the same pirposes hid for the funding ;of the same types of programs authorized under those provisions.

"PROGRAMS .SUTflORIZED

4

_____-.

-. " PAT CEDUCAT IQN A L I N'NOIAION AN I'S UPORT.. 'J

"PION:RAMS AUTHORIZED (

;rants to "Baer. 431. (a) . The Commissioner shallhall carryerlit a program forStates. making grants to the Stet (pursuant to State ans approved under If20 USC 1831.&IL, p. 538.

section 4113 )"(1 ) for supplepi ary educational centers and services to

1

I stijmilate and assist in the proviSion'of vitatlyneeded educationalI -"......i%set.. tees (including preschool education, special education, com-

pensatory education, vocational educhtior, education of gifted and ritalented children, and dual enrollment programs) not available' , in sildiilent quantity or quality, and to stimulate and Assist in Are.. de. elopment arid establishment oiexemphtry elementary and sec-ondary school programs (including thvremodeling, lease, or con- .,struction of necessary facilities) to serve as models for regularschool 'programs; , .

."(2) for the support of demonstration projects by local educe-. tional agencies or privati educational 'organizations designed to. improve nutrition and he,a11)1 services in 'public and private ele-mentary andtsecondary schools serving areas with high concentra,-

.. . tions of children'from low-income families and such projects mayinclude payment of,the cost of (A) coordinating nutrition and. health service resources in the areas to be served by a project,(B) providing supplemental health, mental health, nutritional,and food services to children from low-income families when the . t.

t

101

' r.

a

le

4'

IIS

C

.1A

20 VS0 841,861, 887,888.

20 liSC 1832.

r

resources for such services available to the applicant from' other 'sources are inadequate to meet the needs of such children, (C)nutrition` and health programs designed to train profemional and'other school personnel to provide nutrition and health- servicesin a manlier which meets the needs of children from low-incomefamilies for such services, and ( I)) the evaluation of projectsassisted with respect to their effectiveness in improving schoolnutrition and health services for such children; -

"(3), for strengtheiiirg the leadership resources of State and

local educational agencies, and for assisting those agencies in

the establishment and improvement of programs to identify and

meet educkional needs of States and of local school districts; and

"(4) for making arrangements with local educational agencies

for the carrying out by such agencies in schools which (A) arelocated in urban or rural areas, (B) have a high percentage of

children from low-income families, and (C) 'have a ,high per.eentage of such children who do not complete their Nedm ary

\school education, of demonstration projects invol Ow the use-ofinnovative methods, systems, materials, or programs which slam

promise of reducing the number of such -children who do not

complete their secondasry school education."( b) It is the purpose of this part tocombine Nt'ithin a single author-

ization, subject to the modifications imposed by the jgovisions and

requirements of this le, the programs authorized by title III (exceptfor programs of tesMg, counseling, acd guidance) and title V, andsections 807 and 808 of this Act, and fultds appropriated to carry out

this pikrt must be used only for the same purposes and for the funding

of the same types of programs authorized under those previsions.

"USE OF CULTURAL AND EDUCATIONAL RE80

"Sac. 432. Programs or projectyuppotd t to this part(other than those described in section 431( (3 ) sha invoke in theplanning and carrying out thereof the participation of pensbroadly representative of the cultural and educational resoarces oribe

"Cultural and area to be served. The term 'cultural and educational resources'educational re- includes State educational agencies, local educational agencies, privatesources." nonprofit elementary and secondary schools, institutions of higher

education, public and nonprofit private agencies such as libraries,museums, ninsical and artistic organizations, educational radio andtelevision, and other cultural and educational resources.".

AP

106

1t

.r

cy

r

4

4